…and this is a 
Faith hurts
Category: Religion
Posted on: November 22, 2008 11:41 AM, by PZ Myers
Since a Wall Street Journal editorialist has denounced secularism as the source of all of society's ills, it's only fair to get another opinion. Like, say, of a social scientist who has actually done a comparative study of different nations, looking for correlations between religiosity and superior moral values or stability or whatever. Surely, faith-based societies will have some virtues, won't they?
Uh-oh. The results don't look good for believers.
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.
Some of the problems that the religious most strenuously deplore are ones that are exacerbated by the beliefs they advocate.
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.
Now to be fair, these aren't causal relationships, and this is only a study of correlations, so religion might not be directly responsible — you aren't likely to catch gonorrhea by going to church. But with the state of American religion, you are very likely to catch a kind of pernicious ignorance by going to church, and that disability might make it more likely that you will make bad decisions with unfortunate consequences that will add to the roster of dismaying statistics.
Comments
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | November 22, 2008 12:05 PM
Reminds me of seeing a couple of maps in USN&WR a while back. The first map showed the rate church attendance within the last month. The second showed rate of out-of-wedlock births. The maps were almost identical. Religion=problems due to ignorance.
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | November 22, 2008 12:09 PM
Greg Paul a "social scientist?" He's probably better known as a dinosaur-ologist. (2 links)
Posted by: DenisC | November 22, 2008 12:12 PM
Wow! powerful stuff. A link to the Article is:
http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/pdf/2005-11.pdf
Worth reading
Atheist & proud.
DenisC
Posted by: TSC | November 22, 2008 12:15 PM
However, societies that believe in Bigfoot tend to have better t-shirt sales. Just ask Medved.
Posted by: mockrin2 | November 22, 2008 12:17 PM
I'm surprised that gay marriage wasn't included in the reason for society's ills. To blame secularism and homosexuality for
the USA's or world's decline is, well, humorous. I give you, ta da, George W. Bush, a heterosexual, Christian who has been determined to completely destroy everything in his path.
Posted by: Noadi | November 22, 2008 12:18 PM
With a name as common as Greg Paul, I wouldn't assume it's the same person.
Posted by: Gotchaye | November 22, 2008 12:22 PM
I imagine that, if there's a causal relationship there, it goes the other way.
Isn't it more likely that prosperity and security erode religious belief? The US, while wealthier per capita than most other countries, has a higher poverty rate due to increased inequality (this is exacerbated by the more generous social safety nets in other countries), and a great deal of the US' higher crime, STD, and abortion rates is attributable to the activities of the poor. People living in and around these conditions are more likely to feel the need to embrace a religion.
No doubt religion makes some of it worse (abstinence-only sex ed, for example), but I don't buy that it makes people worse off in general - it just preferentially attracts the worse off (which makes sense since religion is largely about making sense of an unpleasant world with promises of an afterlife).
Posted by: Necio | November 22, 2008 12:22 PM
It might to some extent be a question of sosial problems leading to religion rather than the opposite. That is, if people suffer, they might turn to religion for support and comfort.
Likewise, it might be that people in well functioning societies are more likely to turn away from religion.
Posted by: Matt Heath | November 22, 2008 12:23 PM
These sorts of correlations are fairly old news, but I'm cheered by the fact that this article is the Tory-leaning, Murdoch-owned, Times> of London. It's like Darwin on banknotes; it makes me feel secularism is safe in my homeland.
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | November 22, 2008 12:23 PM
I know it's the same person.
Posted by: Citizen Z | November 22, 2008 12:24 PM
Now to be fair, these aren't causal relationships, and this is only a study of correlations, so religion might not be directly responsible
It doesn't mean that religion is responsible, but it is evidence against the notion that religion increases morality.
Posted by: Michael Fonda | November 22, 2008 12:25 PM
Correlation is indeed not necessarily cause. I hate to bring it up, but if you've ever taken a look at abortion rates, to use one example, you'll not that the District of Columbia has far and away the highest-per-capita rate of any state or district in the country. I have to run out and don't have time to find the link but the numbers, last I checked, were quite staggering. DC is very liberal and very black. Therefore, it would seem that a crucial factor one should be careful to avoid minimizing would be the continuing psychological and sociological aftermath of 300 years of slavery and Jim Crow. One might reasonably wonder what the rates would be once blacks were excluded from the American sample.
Of course, slavery and Jim Crow were the handiwork of our ever lovin', Bible thumpin' southern states so I suppose it would be quite reasonable to bring it all back to religion's doorstep if one has a mind to.
Posted by: NeoDevin | November 22, 2008 12:27 PM
I suppose you could get gonorrhea by going to church if you're a Catholic altar boy.
Posted by: Matt Heath | November 22, 2008 12:28 PM
You mean like,Posted by: CRM-114 | November 22, 2008 12:36 PM
"Faith is believing in something you know isn't true." -Mark Twain
Posted by: John | November 22, 2008 12:40 PM
"But with the state of American religion, you are very likely to catch a kind of pernicious ignorance by going to church..."
Bullshit.
These correlations are associated only with a particular flavor of church, and I suspect you know that, PZ.
Posted by: melior | November 22, 2008 12:42 PM
I dare speculate that the religious are much more likely to suffer a loss of faith in god than we godless nonbelievers are.
It's true -- religion often leads to apostasy!
Posted by: spgreenlaw | November 22, 2008 12:50 PM
Matt Heath,
Personally, I think Marx was spot on with that assessment.
Posted by: cactusren | November 22, 2008 12:50 PM
Sven--The article linked to in post #3 says it was written by Gregory Paul in Baltimore, MD. Greg Paul the paleontologist works at Florida State University in Tallahassee, so I think we can conclude that these are two different Greg Pauls.
Posted by: tacitus | November 22, 2008 12:51 PM
I believe the cause of America's social ills is not religion, it's right-wing conservatism. The US is by far the most right wing democratic nation on the planet, and it's the only modern industrial nation not to have implemented progressive institutions like universal health care and an effective social safety net. That results is greater disenfranchisement, a larger poverty gap, and worst of all, a massive prison population (five times that of any other western nation) which further promotes violence and social instability.
One can argue whether fundamentalist religion begets conservatism, or conservatism begets fundamentalist religion, but am increasingly convinced that it's conservatism that's the root cause. What you believe, and how you believe tends to be determined by your political outlook, not the other way around.
Moving the country politically to the left and keeping it there is the most important way to close the gap on our competition around the world. Hopefully a successful two term Obama presidency will take us a long way down that road.
Posted by: SEF | November 22, 2008 12:53 PM
NB That's old news (check the date on it) - meaning (among other things) that the "Wall Street Journal editorialist" had no real excuse for remaining unaware of the reality of the situation, had he bothered to do the research part of his job.
That article has been in my collection of interesting links from before it even had that particular URL format (and has often been posted in rebuttal to false religious claims). The locations of things change from time to time and then I have to struggle to find the new one if the old one doesn't redirect properly. Perhaps, in future, I'm going to have to store representative strings of text from the content of pages.
Posted by: Matt Heath | November 22, 2008 12:57 PM
spgreenlaw: Me too; that's why I took the opportunity to repeat it. It's surprising how many people only know the second sentence.
Posted by: negentropyeater | November 22, 2008 1:03 PM
This must be God reducing the murder rates, early mortality, sexually transmitted diseases and abortion, of non religious countries such as France, Scandinavia, Japan.
It's obvious this is one of his tests, to check if Americans can resist the temptation of losing their religiosity.
Posted by: Andy | November 22, 2008 1:07 PM
Re #19: No, Greg *Erickson* is the paleontologist who works in Florida. The article PZ links to is indeed by Greg Paul the paleontologist from Maryland, because I know his opinions on religion & society quite well from the VRTPALEO mailing list.
Posted by: SimonG | November 22, 2008 1:07 PM
My own take on it is that the more secular societies are better able to make pragmatic decisions. Deeply held religious beliefs may inhibit a society from adopting policies that work if they are seen to offend those beliefs.
Secular societies are not immune from these effects, and religion isn't the sole source of them but it's one less disadvantage.
Posted by: spgreenlaw | November 22, 2008 1:10 PM
Matt Heath,
People just don't read their Marx and Engles like they used to.
Posted by: The Science Pundit | November 22, 2008 1:11 PM
I find that to be a fascinating correlation. I agree that we should be careful to attribute a causal relationship here. I would also add that the church folk and the "unvirtuous" in these countries (like the USA) aren't necessarily the same people. (They might be; I don't know.) In other words, not only might this be the result of a common cause (I vote for despair and insecurity about the future), but that religiosity and crime, etc. may be rival ways of coping with it. It would be interesting to see a more detailed demographic analysis that addresses this.
Posted by: cactusren | November 22, 2008 1:21 PM
@ 24
Agh...I'm embarrassed. For some reason I seem to switch around people's last names. I did the same thing recently with Larry Whitmer and Larry Martin. Stupid brain!
Posted by: Moses | November 22, 2008 1:25 PM
I got the biggest politics-shock of my life as a young white professional to that back in the 1980s. As we saw in California, from a SOCIAL standpoint blacks are a lot more conservative about many things than whites. Like it or not, black does not equal liberal, despite overwhelmingly voting for (pandering) Democrats over (racist pandering) Republicans.
Since then I've pretty much believed that it's best to not even try to classify blacks as "liberal" or "conservative" from the white political meme of what is either. It is, in this area, a significantly different population.
I have generally find blacks to be more 'conservative,' if you will, in their attitudes about law and order, religion and sex. Much of this is because of their situation in this fucked up country of ours.
Now, the correlation in DC, FWIW, happens to be around poverty. Which is, frankly, (at 75%) THE PRIMARY DRIVER OF ABORTION -- the inability to raise a child due to economic conditions.
I tell Christianist people all the time, you want to fix "abortion" as birth control? First, fix poverty. Second, fix sex education and make birth control easy to get. Those will put a HUGE dent in abortion.
And it's what 'Jesus' would do, not blow up abortion clinics or act like self-righteous assholes...
Posted by: Moses | November 22, 2008 1:28 PM
Man, my self-copy paste and editing sucks ass today... I just so cannot put together a narrative...
Posted by: Cliff | November 22, 2008 1:29 PM
This is absolutely correct. The author of the linked article and the palentologist are the same Gregory Paul.
Cliff
Baltimore, MD
Posted by: tomh | November 22, 2008 1:29 PM
John wrote: These correlations are associated only with a particular flavor of church,
And which flavor would that be? Any one you don't subscribe to, perhaps?
Posted by: Piltdown Man | November 22, 2008 1:30 PM
I'm not a sociologist or statistician (Deo gratias) but a few things strike me as dubious about this piece of research.
Firstly, the survey, by its own admission, deals only with the "quantifiable" (ie material) indicators of social wellbeing. But is social health measurable in purely quantifiable terms? Let's suppose for the sake of argument that the survey is right in its assertion that religious societies are more crime- and violence-ridden than secular ones. For all we know, religious faith might help make the populace more psychologically robust in coping with violence. For all we know, the prevalent religious attitudes might lead to more vigorous counter-strikes and stricter punishments against the criminal classes on the part of the authorities, thus boosting the general morale of law-abiding society.
Conversely, the survey might be right in claiming that secular societies have a greater level of material prosperity than religious ones - but does prosperity always equal happiness? What about the levels of stress and depression in these respective societies?
Secondly, the survey never really gets to grips with what constitutes a "religious" or "secular" society. How are these to be defined? One might assume Spain's Catholic heritage qualifies it as relatively "religious", but it's still considerably more secular than it was, say, in Franco's day. And Phillip II probably wouldn't even recognise modern Spain as being a Catholic country at all.
The fact is, most modern "religious" nations are half-secularized anyway. Consider the curious assertion that non-religious societies have "low" abortion rates - does that mean in comparison to religious societies? Which religious societies have higher abortion rates than non-religious ones? And suppose if could be shown that (to take a purely hypothetical example) Ireland has higher abortion rates than the UK, that would still only be modern, semi-secular Ireland. I don't believe De Valera's Ireland had higher abortion rates than Brown's Britain.
And what about France? The survey classes France as secular. Well, yes, there is a powerful current of laïcisme in post-Revolutionary France, but there is also a strong spirit of Catholic reaction that should not be underestimated. And I suspect an analagous situation exists in Japan, another "secular" nation according to the survey.
These hazy definitions allow the survey to play fast and loose. If the USA seems in many ways "dysfunctional" - well, that can only be because it is the "most theistic" secular nation (ie isn't really secular at all) - which is highly questionable. (BTW, I love the chutzpah with which low crime-rates in Catholic countries are dismissed as "statistical noise".)
Thirdly, the ultra-secular UK is conspicuous by its absence. Could that be because its high levels of crime, delinquency, teenage pregnancy and STDs give the lie to the survey's thesis?
Finally, as PZ concedes, even if we accept the claim that some religious societies are more dysfunctional than some secular ones, how can we be sure religion is the causal factor here? There might be countless other factors, economic, climatic, God knows what, that the survey doesn't take into account ...
Posted by: Jonathan | November 22, 2008 1:43 PM
"The study shows that England, despite the social ills it has"
Social ills? Huh? Compared to other countries we are hardly remarkable. We have far fewer cases of rampant fundie mentalism.
Posted by: Matt Heath | November 22, 2008 1:47 PM
@Piltdown man: Not vague, not at all. See original article linked @3. Lots of specific measures of religiosity plotted against lots of specific markers of social well-being and broadly the same story across them all. Britain is included in the data; it doesn't actually seem to far from "religion sucks" trend-line on most of the scales.
Posted by: negentropyeater | November 22, 2008 1:49 PM
I think there is an important feedback element here :
1. as long as religion keeps people, especially the more defavorised, into the mode of rationalization of inequalities, they don't demand as much welfare improvements
Typical example is of course the extremely low voter turnout in all postwar US presidential elections of the "bottom quarter", (the 25% lowest income have systematically showed up with less than 35% turnout in each election) : this helps to ignore their demands and explains why the US has never had any form of social-democratic alternance to the usual Republican//Democratic system.
2. A gradual decrease in religiosity should reduce the element of rationalization of inequalities experienced by the populations, thereby increasing their demands for welfare. As more welfare programmes are put in place, the need for religion decreases, whch accelerates the decline in religiosity.
The USA is now begining phase 2, whereas European countries started with it n the 60s.
The result will be the same, a very rapid and accelerated decline of religion in the next 25 years, andincreased demands for welfare and social benefits from the more defavorised.
Can't change the movement.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | November 22, 2008 1:54 PM
Pilty, what's so hard about understanding religion keeps people stupid. A mind free of god and religion can ask the right questions to really solve problems.
Posted by: David Wiener | November 22, 2008 1:57 PM
#12
While African Americans vote liberal (its in their economic and basic social interests) they are also very religious. Often fundamentalist. This is why, among other reasons, there is still so much pandering to religion in the Democratic party.
Posted by: tacitus | November 22, 2008 1:58 PM
That isn't incorrect. If all those millions of right-wing fundamentalist Christians were faithful Methodists or Presbyterians then America would be a much different place. That's why I believe it fundamental correlation with the health of a society is with political belief, not religious belief.
If we moved America politically leftwards to the center of the political spectrum of a typical Western democratic nation, then we would all be much better off.
2/3rds of voters under the age of 30 voted for Obama this time around, which is a hopeful sign that we're beginning to move in the right direction. If he has a successful first term and is re-elected then a whole generation of voters will be left-leaning (much like Reagan did in 1980/84). If, at the same time we get meaningful healthcare and welfare reform (to bring us into line with other countries) then a permanent shift may well be within our grasp.
The right-winger know it. Just the other day, one of the leaders of the Cato Institute said that if the Democrats get universal healthcare passed into law, Republicans--as they exist today--are all but doomed.
Posted by: Kristinmh | November 22, 2008 2:02 PM
I can picture John Hagee right now, giving someone a cold reading - "Yessir! The Lo-ahd Jayzuss iz-ah telling mah! The name begins with an S...or a K...or an SK..."
Hee. Rampant fundie mentalism.
Posted by: Citizen Z | November 22, 2008 2:06 PM
Oh, goodness. The DI approach to social science, now?
Posted by: Matt Heath | November 22, 2008 2:08 PM
Are Presbyterians uniformly moderate on that side of the pond? In Europe we get fuckwits like Ian Paisley.Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | November 22, 2008 2:19 PM
Except that the part behind the "thus" doesn't follow from the part before.
I live in France, and I can tell you that the Catholic reaction can be safely ignored, even more so than the Bible Belt of the Netherlands. Yes, it exists, but it is much smaller than you seem to believe, and of course smaller than it portrays itself.
Voting for president in a safe state is completely useless, and many people understand that...
What does turnout in swing states look like?
Posted by: tacitus | November 22, 2008 2:31 PM
To be honest, I'm not sure. I just picked the first two mainstream denominations I thought of. I was raised a Methodist in the U.K. so I know they're liberal Christian lot (though that does seem to vary more in the U.S.) and I'd forgotten about Ian Paisley and his mob.
Suffice to say that if instead of fundamentalists and charismatics we had mainstream moderates in the Christian church in the U.S. then we probably wouldn't have half the number of social ills we currently have in America.
My parents are practicing Methodists and I am an atheist, but they are more liberal than I am in some cases! Oh for an America full of wishy-washy liberal Christians! (I would prefer non-believers, of course, but it would be a step in the right direction).
Posted by: negentropyeater | November 22, 2008 2:32 PM
Well, you must like plaisanteries
In case you speak french, here's a little article on some statistics summarising the situation :
http://atheisme.free.fr/Contributions/Religion_etat_des_lieux.htm
1. only 55% declared catholics left in France
2. of these 55%, only 50% of them believe in God !
3. that means only 22.5% true catholics (TM)
4. of these, only 4% (!!!) , practice regularly.
Strong Catholic spirit in France ?
Maybe in your dreams...
Posted by: negentropyeater | November 22, 2008 2:39 PM
What's the relevance to the point I was making ?
Posted by: Gotchaye | November 22, 2008 2:42 PM
Piltdown, while it's true that we do care about things that have thus far avoided quantification (happiness, say), unquantifiables aren't the only things that matter. Take the homicide rate. It's obvious that lowering it is a good thing for society, whether or not doing so increases average happiness.
You could speculate that religion is so good for the unquantifiables that religious societies are actually better off, even though they tend to have worse quantifiables, but you've really got nothing to go on here.
Posted by: Matt | November 22, 2008 2:47 PM
Piltdown, I have one thing to correct you on: Japan does not have a reactionary religious movement. The figures for religious people in Japan (i.e. those who actually regularly attend any kind of spiritual organization) are very low. They might have some reactionary Nationalist views lurking in the background, but religion is nearly dead there. Every Japanese teacher I have had has said that when asked what religion they belong to, they don't even know what the questioner means.
They come from a place where religious traditions are blended with about as much reverence as we have for tacky fads. Even Shinto, the native belief system, is not so much believed in, as it is inherited like a tradition. Sort of like someone who is culturally Jewish.
Anyway, everyone else seems to have taken care of the rest of your post.
Posted by: Piltdown Man | November 22, 2008 2:52 PM
David Marjanović @43:
Size isn't everything.
negentropyeater @45:
I'd rather dreams than nightmares.
Posted by: Matt Heath | November 22, 2008 3:08 PM
Ignoring the fact that this has no baring at all, on the fact that your previous claim (to which negentropy eater was responding) was pure wishful thinking: MOST ARBITRARY. PROJECTION CURVE, EVAH!Posted by: DavidONE | November 22, 2008 3:12 PM
Ugh - The Times. Not a pleasant use of trees or bytes - see their regular denial of climate change, amongst others.
The original article - http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html - provides some interesting conclusions:
Posted by: Dave Wiley | November 22, 2008 3:13 PM
...higher rates of belief in and worship of a creator correlate with higher rates of homicide,...
Repeat after me, "correlation does not equal causation." Faulty logic is faulty logic no matter what it is in support of.
Posted by: Piltdown Man | November 22, 2008 3:14 PM
tacitus @39:
Oy vey!
Posted by: tacitus | November 22, 2008 3:16 PM
Yes, and I suppose you believe all Muslims are active jihadists too? Give me a break.
Look, having a majority practicing Muslim population in France is no more appealing that having a majority practicing Catholic population, but there is no need to give in to hysteria. The key is to maintain a strong secular state and state institutions that will withstand an increase in the numbers of religious adherents, and institute policies of integration to ensure that the religious community doesn't become isolated and resentful.
There is nothing inevitable about the rise of Islam to be the dominant faith (politically) in Europe. In fact much of the religious-right's fearmongering about a majority Muslim population in Europe in a few decades has already been debunked many times. Religious extremism of all kinds must be fought at home and (where absolutely necessary) abroad, but being paranoid about it doesn't help at all.
Posted by: SC | November 22, 2008 3:16 PM
http://www.cnn.com/2008/HEALTH/07/02/nations.happiness/index.html
Posted by: negentropyeater | November 22, 2008 3:23 PM
Oh, the beautiful projection curve that shows that shows that muslims are going to take over France, and probably why not the whole of Europe.
One of the favourite myths of the ignorant American religious right.
The only problem with it, is that unfortunately for you guys, second and third generation muslims show EXACTLY the same secularization trends in France as the Catholics.
They just abandon the practice of the religion of their parents. They can't be bothered, in our society, there is no need for it, plus our Laïc schools where they learn the same things (Science, Evolution, History, Philosophy, etc...) just makes sure they get rid of their dogmas very rapidly.
So that curve, well, it had an ncrease for a while because we had an influx of immgrants for two generations, but that's stopped, and their chldren are as French and secular as may be.
Tough luck. You won't see no muslims invading Europe, just those damned Atheists.
Posted by: negentropyeater | November 22, 2008 3:27 PM
SC #55,
I have 0% trust in this kind of research !
Posted by: SC | November 22, 2008 3:35 PM
I realize you're on one of your anti-American tears today, neg, but that's really one of the favorite myths of the European right, and not much discussed over here. And I believe P. Scumbag is one of yours, too. :)
Posted by: SC | November 22, 2008 3:39 PM
The kind conducted by the University of Michigan's Institute for Social Research?
Posted by: raven | November 22, 2008 3:42 PM
This quote by Marx is no where near as anti-religious as people make it out to be. Nothing wrong with opium or its myriad of derivatives per se. These are among the most common and widely prescribed pain killers.
If you have continuous, untreatable pain from any number of causes, back dysfunction, cancer etc., you will be glad that the FSM invented poppies.
I guess quote mining dates back a few centuries at least.
Posted by: Ka | November 22, 2008 3:43 PM
From: http://edition.cnn.com/2008/HEALTH/07/02/nations.happiness/index.html, posted by SC # 55
I somehow doubt that the Icelanders are still so happy ...Posted by: SC | November 22, 2008 3:46 PM
I was thinking the same thing when I read it!
Posted by: mothra | November 22, 2008 3:46 PM
After Pilty was properly sliced and diced, s/he attempted to to redirect comments to disparage a different religion. Looks trollish, maybe we should ignore the comments.. s/he's a fake anyway.
Posted by: Matt Heath | November 22, 2008 3:48 PM
@raven#60: When it's quoted in full I don't think anyone takes it as particularly hostile. It's only without the first sentence it can be read as "they're all junkies"
Posted by: Nick Gotts | November 22, 2008 3:50 PM
Piltdown Scumbag,
You really are totally incapable of the most elementary intellectual honesty, aren't you? Certainly this survey is not (and does not claim to be) absolutely definitive, but the trends look quite clear: increased religiosity correlates with increases in multiple, measurable social ills. You are reduced first to pretending that France and Japan are not secular countries, and then to the pathetic "I'd rather have dreams than nightmares"! Where's your countervailing research, Scumbag? Time to shut up about the evils of secularism, until you can produce some evidence. And no, before you ask, the Pope's opinion is not evidence.
Posted by: SC | November 22, 2008 3:54 PM
Nor is any other random quotation, P.S.
Posted by: Piltdown Man | November 22, 2008 3:54 PM
"Who are you going to believe, me or your own eyes?" - attrib Groucho Marx
Posted by: SC | November 22, 2008 3:57 PM
Idiot troll.
Posted by: Capital Dan | November 22, 2008 3:58 PM
What kind of fucking retard posts links to pictures instead of answers to questions?
Really, man. Put some effort into it.
Posted by: Nick Gotts | November 22, 2008 4:02 PM
Is it not absolutely typical of the intellectual and moral coward such as Piltdown Scumbag that, when defeated in argument, they flail about wildly, trying to change the subject and land a blow - any blow- on the opponent? What on earth does a graph of the French Muslim population (without of course any hint as to how the projection for future figures was arrived at) or an Obama t-shirt, have to do with the subject under discussion? And for that matter, why is the Obama t-shirt linked to via a Yiddish expression. Obama is Jewish? Or just a tool of the worldwide Jewish-Muslim-Masonic conspiracy against the One True Religion?
Posted by: Capital Dan | November 22, 2008 4:06 PM
I have to admit, I got a kick out of the potatohead's link to a picture of the big, scary Muslim population growing unchecked and giving the sniveling little twit "nightmares."
I suggest not clicking on any of the links that idiot slaps up. They're just red herrings, and they're not worth the bandwidth. If the moron is too stupid to answer questions himself, ignore the troll.
Posted by: SC | November 22, 2008 4:07 PM
BTW, Puerto Rico isn't a country but a self-governing US territory.
Posted by: JStein | November 22, 2008 4:14 PM
PZ, I disagree that the relationship isn't causal (though I think you were getting at this, and know that already).
Look at STD rates, and you'll find that the rates are disproportionately high in religious communities (not simply, as religious people try and suggest, urban communities). Pregnancy and STD rates are highest among areas where "abstinence only" lessons are taught, whether at school, at home or in church.
The moral: kids have sex, and in order to be safe, they need to be made aware of all of their options.
In terms of homocide, again we find that those rates are high in poor, religious communities (which are often urban). There is a direct correlation between poverty and religiosity, and that should always be pointed out.
Why do religious people kill more people than non-religious people?
It's not because they have a jihad.
It's because religious societies don't encourage education, they encourage faith and ignorance, and it is uneducated people, as a general rule, that are responsible for homocides and other violent crimes.
Posted by: Nick Gotts | November 22, 2008 4:16 PM
SC@58,
Actually, I have heard the "Muslims are gonna take over in Europe" meme more from Americans than Europeans (although this may be because I argue a lot with Americans on the web). It's used as a taunt by a lot of right-wing Americans whenever any aspect of the US is criticised by a Brit.It's often linked with the invented term "Eurabia", coined by Bat Ye'or, a British historian of Egyptian Jewish origin, but has been publicised extensively by the Canadian Mark Steyn; and with the accusation that most Europeans are antisemitic.
Posted by: Piltdown Man | November 22, 2008 4:16 PM
Nick Gotts:
I'm sensing some hostility here, Nick.
Well, the Muslim thing just seemed tangentially interesting in the light of remarks about the Church's waning influence on an increasingly secularized French society.
The T-shirt was prompted by tacitus' enthusiasm for the Obama Nation.
Nah, the slogan on the T-shirt just reminded me of a famous Nazi slogan.
Posted by: Nibien | November 22, 2008 4:22 PM
God With us?
Yeah, that was pretty popular amongst Nazis, both during WW2 and today.
Posted by: Nick Gotts | November 22, 2008 4:22 PM
What kind of fucking retard posts links to pictures instead of answers to questions? - Capital Dan
A "traditionalist Catholic" fucking retard!
Posted by: SC | November 22, 2008 4:28 PM
It seemed I heard variants of it all the time in Europe (Spain and the Netherlands), but very rarely in the US (which I've chalked up to the more immediate concern of the right - "OH NOEZ! The MEXICANS! Soon we'll all be speaking Mexican!" - and to the fact that the news/pundits in the US generally pay little attention to anything occurring anywhere in the world that doesn't directly involve the US). I could be wrong, though - it's entirely anecdotal. I was somewhat taken aback by neg's reference (again) to the US in response to Scumbag's comment when I don't believe he's from the US.
Posted by: Feynmaniac | November 22, 2008 4:29 PM
Godwin's law...you lose.
Or do you need a picture?
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | November 22, 2008 4:31 PM
Which flavor would that be?
Posted by: SC | November 22, 2008 4:34 PM
Chunky Monkey?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | November 22, 2008 4:35 PM
I'm finding Pilty to be just as mentally disturbed as our poor PR. And about as truthful. In other words, he is too tied up with the lies of the church to see the real truth. Pilty, drop god and religion. That leads to rationality. Time to make the break.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | November 22, 2008 4:36 PM
I was thinking Tooty Fruity but Chunky Monkey works.
One is fruity and one is bananas. Both fit for religion.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | November 22, 2008 4:38 PM
ugh
yes i know it's tutti frutti.
*mumbles something to himself about correcting something so stupid and shuffles off to check on the Rube Goldberg machine he's creating in his basement
Posted by: tomh | November 22, 2008 4:56 PM
Nick Gotts wrote: Actually, I have heard the "Muslims are gonna take over in Europe" meme more from Americans than Europeans, ...
As long as personal anecdote is going to count for evidence, I can say that I've lived in America all my life and never heard anyone, of any political persuasion, say anything like that. As someone pointed out, very few Americans care at all about what goes on in Europe.
Posted by: Nick Gotts | November 22, 2008 4:57 PM
Piltdown Scumbag,
Do you really not realise that a graph including a projected future trend without any explanation of how the projection was arrived at is worthless?
tacitus said:
"Moving the country politically to the left and keeping it there is the most important way to close the gap on our competition around the world. Hopefully a successful two term Obama presidency will take us a long way down that road."
Do you really think a picture of a t-shirt, without any context, is somehow an answer to that? Is this, indeed, a t-shirt intended for supporters or fans of Obama, or for the "New World Order" conspiracy nuts, as seems more likely? What, if anything, were you trying to say? The URL you give has absolutely no context. I tried putting the slogan into google, and the only relevant website is a far-right, racist American one, which claims the t-shirt has appeared in Montreal.
Posted by: Kristinmh | November 22, 2008 5:03 PM
That sounds like a fun conspiracy theory. I love the ones which totally contradict themselves, don't you? It reminds me of one I ran across in around 1997 on the internet, in which the Nazis, Jews, Freemasons, AND Communists were plotting together to take over the world. I think they had a moonbase, too.
Posted by: Nick Gotts | November 22, 2008 5:03 PM
As someone pointed out, very few Americans care at all about what goes on in Europe. - tomh
That's not incompatible with what I reported. The meme is just used as a handy sneer when arguing with a Brit (or presumably, any other European). No knowledge of, or concern about Europe is needed.
Posted by: Nick Gotts | November 22, 2008 5:09 PM
I ran across in around 1997 on the internet, in which the Nazis, Jews, Freemasons, AND Communists were plotting together to take over the world. - Kristinmh
Quite possibly Piltdown Scumbag originated it.
Posted by: gypsytag | November 22, 2008 5:11 PM
I first read of the "muslim takeover of France" in an article by Sam Harris.
Posted by: DCP | November 22, 2008 5:16 PM
Yeah, Pilty is a troll. Don't feed him. No need to become polemic.
Posted by: Sanity Jane | November 22, 2008 5:17 PM
I drew from this very study in crafting a post about Henninger's column for the WSJ Opinion Journal forum - a post that was rejected because they had already locked the thread (no doubt because half of the early comments were negative and getting high ratings from readers).
Anyway, you can see similar patterns within the U.S. between strongly religious states, especially in the poverty-ridden South, and their more secular "elitist" counterparts. In response to Henninger's admiring remarks about the South being a reservoir of morality, I did a little research and found that Alaska, Arkansas, Oklahoma, and West Virginia had the highest divorce rates in the nation in 2005, and South Carolina and Tennessee came in second and third for all violent crimes in 2007, behind DC.
If poverty and hopelessness are what's driving so many people to seek solace in an imaginary God as well as the real emotional and material support of religious communities, it behooves the godless community to support secular aid organizations and publicly-funded social programs that raise people out of poverty. Bus ads and billboards are nice, and they might change a few middle-class minds, but they don't address the underlying reasons for the prevalence of religious fundamentalism in America.
Posted by: Adam Cuerden | November 22, 2008 5:25 PM
Actually, one could speculate a causal connection: For instance, in areas with high religiosity, perhaps effective sexual education is voted down or protested.
Posted by: Feynmaniac | November 22, 2008 5:27 PM
Noooo, the Commie Nazis have gathered allies!
Posted by: Wowbagger | November 22, 2008 5:44 PM
Realistically, it's far more likely that poverty and poor education leads to both the societal ills and the religious belief. Critical thinking is religion's greatest nemesis.
A lot if it's to do with optimism. The Liars for Jesus™ are telling them that there's an invisible super-best-friend in the sky who loves them and who will take them to a better place when they die and maybe, just maybe, will reward them with a miracle - a way out of their miserable lives.
But the belief in the religion don't seem to extend as far as actually living by its restrictions - if they even know what those restrictions are; data show actual knowledge of key aspects of scripture is minimal. This implies their belief isn't really that strong. It's like a combination of Pascal's Wager and a fervent hope for some sort of deus ex machina life-changing event.
They want to believe it's true. And they don't believe their lives can get any worse; why not tick the box marked 'Christian' on a survey form? There might be a god, and he might be watching.
It's been the same way for centuries. How do you keep the peasants from revolting? Tell them there's a god, and that god is all-powerful - but he's on the King's side so you'd better not rebel or god will punish you. But don't worry - yes, the king has a castle and a bed while you live in the mud with the pigs, but when you die you'll go to a wonderful place anyway.
I don't think it's fair to say religion is causing the problems, but it may well be making them worse. And it certainly isn't helping.
Posted by: Owlmirror | November 22, 2008 5:55 PM
Yeah, because God forbid you should actually study something before spouting off about it.
Oh, is that why you had the bronze shiny ones to state that "the law is a big girl's blouse" about the actual legal definition of assault?
Oh! Well, that one is easy. Since strict religious authorities constantly harp on how their congregation is GOING TO BURN FOREVER IN HELL if they don't follow the LAWS OF GOD TO THE LETTER, thereby causing stress and depression in their congregants, those places with fewer strict religious authorities are going to have less stress and depression.
Sheesh.
Posted by: Wowbagger | November 22, 2008 6:02 PM
This is something we need MA Jeff to throw some sociology-fu at.
Do we know where he's disappeared to?
Posted by: SC | November 22, 2008 6:15 PM
Hey! I resent that! I'm a sociologist! :) (Albeit one with a very bad cold and a very bad leak that just sprung up in her kitchen...and probably too lazy even under the best of circumstances to take this up. Not even up to discussing the Marx&religion thing at the moment :(.)
Just heard from him the other day - he's OK, dissertating.
Posted by: Wowbagger | November 22, 2008 6:21 PM
Hey SC - sorry, I'd forgotten that you were also a sociologist. I just got so used to MA Jeff being the go-to guy for that sort of expertise that he's who I always think of in situations like this. My own musings are only vaguely- informed ones.
Good to know he's doing okay. Dissertating? Sounds painful - no wonder I stopped a bachelor level (twice)...
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | November 22, 2008 6:27 PM
As much as I would like MAJeff to post, I understand the last few weeks before the dissertation is done is rather intense--even if my experience was many years ago.
SC, tell him HI! from all of us, and after he turns in his tome to please post here for a little sanity prior to his defense. We support his efforts.
Posted by: SC | November 22, 2008 6:33 PM
Wowbagger - No need to apologize; I was just joking. I generally like to speak as a nonsociologist around here, even though I do get a lot of great ideas for research from reading. He offered much more in the way of substantive sociological contributions.
Dissertating is indeed extremely painful, for all involved. There was a funny article in the Chronicle a while back about how waiting for someone to finish a dissertation is like waiting for a person die of a long-term illness. In this case, though, the suffering has a reward, and I'm sure he'll get there.
Posted by: -l | November 22, 2008 6:34 PM
Hi PZ! Long time fan here. However, I am disappointed in this post. I beleive this is a misrepresentation of evidence. At least you acknowledge that this is correlational evidence, which many journalists fail to do, but I think that was rather inadequate. There are many many other possible variables here, including race relations or economic disparity. It ought to at least have been said that religion is only one of many things correlating with STDs, violence, and other ills of society.
As a scientist, I beleive you should strive to accurately report evidence, even in an informal blog, and even if it isn't your research. More people will probably read your blog post than the actual article - it is your duty as a scientist to report accurately what a study is showing, which I beleive you failed to do here.
As a social scientist, I take this very seriously, and I hope you do in the future as well.
Also, keep up the good work. This post was an exception.
Posted by: Nick Gotts | November 22, 2008 6:35 PM
SC,
Sorry to hear about your cold (and your leak). I'm still recovering from a cold which hit me right in the larynx, and had me on sick leave for over a week - longest I've ever taken off work in my life. Off to Paris for a conference tomorrow, hoping my voice will be fully recovered for my presentation on Tuesday. At least now they've moved the London terminal of Eurostar to St. Pancras, Aberdeen-Paris by rail can be done in a day!
Posted by: SC | November 22, 2008 6:37 PM
I'll certainly tell him you guys were asking after him.
Posted by: SC | November 22, 2008 6:44 PM
Thanks, Nick. I always get sick when I travel (though this particular trip was well worth it). Most upsetting is that I had to cancel a class, which I absolutely hate to do; also that there will now be maintenance guys here shortly - with any luck - tearing up my kitchen ceiling again.
Sorry to hear about your illness, but your trip sounds nice. Hope you get your voice back!
Posted by: Wowbagger | November 22, 2008 6:47 PM
SC - cool.
Yeah, I can imagine how this is a good place to find starting points for research. My background is in psychology - plays no part in my current life, but it's something I'll forever be interested in - so I'm always wondering about how people end up thinking and acting the way they do.
Hence my fascination the other with how Heddle could be a later-in-life convert after obtaining a PhD in Physics. It just don't add up!
Posted by: Nick Gotts | November 22, 2008 7:03 PM
Hence my fascination the other with how Heddle could be a later-in-life convert after obtaining a PhD in Physics. It just don't add up! Wowbagger
My guess is he was always a prim, strait-laced, pedantic type, drawn to physics by its remoteness from the messiness of human life rather than its intellectual excitement; and has had the misfortune to be infected by the memetic virus of Calvinism, to which his psychological type is naturally prone, possibly after some personal disappointment. After all, if God has predetermined everything, the disappointment was bound to happen, there's nothing he could have done about it... However, I haven't studied his website in any detail, there may be more clues there.
Posted by: The Science Pundit | November 22, 2008 7:11 PM
Posted by: JStein @#73
Look at STD rates ...
JStein,
Remember that there are a whole variety of traits that are being lumped together here. I agree that there probably is a causal relationship between religiosity and things like STD & teen pregnancy rates, but I hesitate to draw that causal connection with violent crimes.
Posted by: Wowbagger | November 22, 2008 7:35 PM
That tends to be the clincher, doesn't it? As I always say, I hope my life never becomes so bad that I'm forced to turn to religion for solace.
Still, as sects go, Calvinism is (from what I know) a bit less flat-out stupid than a lot of the others.
Posted by: JStein | November 22, 2008 8:11 PM
TheSciencePundit,
The causal relationship between religion and violent crime in the inner-city is, your right, a little more difficult to see or argue for. Of course, in many societies, it's incredibly obvious (The Middle East being the prime example).
It also creates inter-civilization warfare and encourages the same kind of tribalism we see in gang warfare.
Posted by: pharynguphat | November 22, 2008 8:35 PM
If it's not causal, then why bring it up?
I mean, there is a high correlation between the level of brainless fuckbotism and the reading of this blog.
Does this blog CAUSE the fuckbotism? Perish the thought.
Posted by: clinteas | November 22, 2008 8:46 PM
This discussion has a beard longer than Santa's,and we have talked about this here a million times before.
Not having the time right now to read this study,I just want to say that I always found it useful to just compare the societies mentioned,in terms of what they are doing to educate,put to work,protect socially and financially,their inhabitants,and to draw conclusions from that.
And while its probably difficult to say whats chicken and whats egg,just look at the scandinavian countries for example for a moment,and compare them with the US,whats the difference?
Health care,employment,education...The murder rate will go down right with religiosity in such an environment,where people just do not have to worry so much
Just my private little theory of everything before I head off to work.....
Posted by: Wowbagger | November 22, 2008 8:53 PM
If you're presenting yourself as evidence then you're quite correct. Unfortunately, your sample size of 1 isn't good for validity.
Posted by: alex | November 22, 2008 8:55 PM
here in Japan, it seems most people have at least some Shintoist/Buddhist/Christian beliefs. however, the performance of rituals etc is extremely unintrusive on public life. if you visit a shrine at any time of day, there will be someone there, praying for good luck, or success or the like - but the minute they leave the shrine, Shinto ceases to hold much importance on the rest of their day. also, people tend to switch faiths according to which is most convenient at a certain time. there is no great political or social investation in religion, generally.
also,
fail.
Posted by: Notagod | November 22, 2008 11:01 PM
We need to be cautious about excusing the United States Christian's criminal tendencies lest we hire another one like g dubya bush. Dubya is very much the same as the christians I have known. Not every christian in the United States commits crime but a disproportionately large number of christian and other god-idea believers do commit crime in the United States.
United States christians learn deception and manipulation directly from their church. They learn thou shall not lie except when it is justified by doing it for their god-idea and in that way there is no crime that a christian can't justified. The bad book that is the center of christian religion can be and is used to justify anything.
Every christian hopes for the "return" of their jebus. In order for that to happen the earth must be in the process of complete failure, they want it and they are willing to work toward that goal. What more cause could there be?
It may not be proven that United States christianity is the root cause of the high crime rate but the arrows do have a tendency to point in that direction.
Posted by: Craig | November 23, 2008 1:34 AM
Well, Catholicism's flavor is obviously that of 2000 year old zombie blood and flesh. Not too appetizing.
As for the others, I dunno but I just imagine them tasting of very mildewy old parchment.
Wait - what does batshit taste like?
Posted by: Mike Berry | November 23, 2008 2:48 AM
The U.S. a "faith based society"? Not since the disciples of John Dewey have been around. Why don't the cowards hiding on our high school and college campuses today stand up and take the credit for the secular society we have become? But then the "higher rates of homicide, juvenile and early adult mortality, STD infection rates, teen pregnancy and abortion in the prosperous(read educated) democracies" would be laid on their doorstep. God forbid! Oops.
Posted by: maxamillion | November 23, 2008 3:11 AM
tacitus
The US is by far the most right wing democratic nation on the planet, and it's the only modern industrial nation not to have implemented progressive institutions like universal health care and an effective social safety net.
http://www.ramusa.org/
Past Expedition At the expedition on July 25-27 in Wise, VA, 1584 volunteers provided 5475 services to 2670 patients, for a total value of care of $1,725,418.00! We would like to thank all of the volunteers who made this year's expedition successfu
Posted by: Nick Gotts | November 23, 2008 7:35 AM
Mike Berry@117,
Address the issue. There is no doubt the US is much less secular than any other rich nation - and the survey shows it has a much higher incidence of measurable social pathologies. Hence it is absolutely clear at the least that high levels of secularity are completely compatible with much lower levels of these social pathologies than the US shows. (This is, of course, one reason why this survey is highly pertinent even though the mechanisms causing the clear correlation between religion and social pathologies cannot be deduced from it. It gives the lie to anti-secularist propaganda such as yours.)
Posted by: mayhempix | November 23, 2008 7:37 AM
Posted by: Mike Berry | November 23, 2008 2:48 AM
" But then the "higher rates of homicide, juvenile and early adult mortality, STD infection rates, teen pregnancy and abortion in the prosperous(read educated) democracies" would be laid on their doorstep. God forbid! Oops."
Wow Mike! That must be why:
"...white evangelical Protestants make their "sexual début"--to use the festive term of social-science researchers--shortly after turning sixteen. Among major religious groups, only black Protestants begin having sex earlier."
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/11/03/081103fa_fact_talbot
A study of 18 democracies found that the more atheist societies tended to have relatively low murder and suicide rates and relatively low incidence of abortion and teen pregnancy.
http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html
"Divorce rates among conservative Christians were significantly higher than for other faith groups, and much higher than Atheists and Agnostics experience.
"The Associated Press analyzed divorce statistics from the US Census Bureau. They found that Massachusetts had the lowest divorce rate in the U.S. at 2.4 per 1,000 population. Texas had the highest rate at 4.1 per 1,000. They found that the highest divorce rates are found in the "Bible Belt."
"The AP report stated that 'the divorce rates in these conservative states are roughly 50 percent above the national average of 4.2 per thousand people.' The 10 Southern states with some of the highest divorce rates were Alabama, Arkansas, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Texas. By comparison nine states in the Northeast were among those with the lowest divorce rates: Connecticut, Massachusetts, Maine, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Vermont."
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_dira.htm
Please notice the last quotes were from "belief.net"... not exactly a hotbed of immoral atheists.
"Oops."
Posted by: clinteas | November 23, 2008 9:00 AM
//.white evangelical Protestants make their "sexual début"--to use the festive term of social-science researchers--shortly after turning sixteen. Among major religious groups, only black Protestants begin having sex earlier."//
*Gets out the can with the spray tan*
Where can I sign up to that mob???
Posted by: Piltdown Man | November 23, 2008 9:13 AM
Owlmirror @96:
I used to work in a university bookshop where the sociology department was larger than the philosophy, theology and history sections combined. I spent many a wasted lunch hour browsing through the latest Bauman or Giddens. The impenetrability of the prose was matched only by the transparency of the agenda.
Posted by: clinteas | November 23, 2008 9:18 AM
Pilty,
you claim qualifications to talk about a particular issue or field from having been in the same room with books on the topic?
Now thats refreshing....
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | November 23, 2008 9:24 AM
We new it. Pilty is a fraud, just like his moniker.
Pilty, since you post here for often we must think you wish to come over to the rational side. All you need to do is to renounce one more god than you have at the moment. Then the illogic that is religion can fall away, and you can become sane.
Posted by: SC | November 23, 2008 9:26 AM
Ha! Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
(BTW, in the past I used Bauman's Modernity and the Holocaust in intro classes. If you find that prose impenetrable, you're a turnip.)
Posted by: Nick Gotts | November 23, 2008 9:27 AM
Sociology may contain a fairly high proportion of blithering nonsense - but it comes nowhere near theology's 100%.
Posted by: clinteas | November 23, 2008 10:25 AM
//Sociology may contain a fairly high proportion of blithering nonsense //
*Anxiously awaiting SC's deadly reply*
LOL
Posted by: Phil E. Drifter | November 23, 2008 10:34 AM
Atheists are smarter than religitards.
Proud to be an atheist.
Posted by: SC | November 23, 2008 10:37 AM
:). Nah, I don't have any excess disciplinary pride or defensiveness. I do interdisciplinary research myself, and there's a lot of garbage in most fields. I'm confident that my own work is solid, and I know of (and know) many other strong sociologists, so I don't get my hackles up when people point out the junk.
Hi, clinteas, by the way - long time no flirt. ;)
Posted by: clinteas | November 23, 2008 10:42 AM
Yes,i know....dont tempt me tho lol...
Posted by: SC | November 23, 2008 10:51 AM
Now I'm tempted to tempt you. Better wait till I'm feeling better, though.
...unless you're planning to send that ticket, Dr. Handsome;D.
Posted by: clinteas | November 23, 2008 10:58 AM
SC,
im defenseless atm,tired an a lil tipsy at 3am,worked all day,id send you the crown jewels right now LOL
Been busy with work,therefore lack of presence recently,will try to improve on that i promise...:-)
Posted by: bipolar2 | November 23, 2008 11:40 AM
** It's corporate welfare health care, stupid **
No friend of the big3 monotheisms here.
But, the countries that do well in health are those which have good, universal health care! Including good prenatal care! (surprise! surprise!)
Even in countries which are dominated by the Catholic Church, France, Italy, Spain, medical care is universal and adequate birth control including abortion is provided.
In the US lack of adequate health care resides with corporations which run the most expensive, least provident health care in the world. Second, our means of offering health care through businesses only worsens as workers are closed out of business participation in the system.
Then we must add racism to the mix of deprivation. Poor nutrition among the poor, including poor whites, increases the percentage of chronic diseases like diabetes, heart diseases, and cancer.
Certainly the proto-fascist religions (Southern Baptist, Mormons, right-wing RCs) use the vote, intimidation, death threats, and assassination to curtail all forms of sex education, family planning, birth control.
It's too easy to blame the f**ked up health care system on religion. Bad health care lines the pockets of America's super rich at the same time as providing poor health services to our "loser" demographic segments.
Put your voice on line for health care reform which attacks the rich . . . and we'll see how long you keep your tenured position.
bipolar2
Posted by: bipolar2 | November 23, 2008 12:25 PM
. . . write to Henninger directly via his email. Here's my message to him about the benefits of monotheism:
Date: November 23, 2008 9:15:19 AM PST
To: henninger@wsj.com
Subject: xianity is also a lousy heuristic
** monotheist religious ideologies are equivalent and equally pernicious **
• worldly benefits prove nothing about otherworldly claims
The very earliest xians certainly received benefits in the-here-and-now for their faith: group solidarity and ideological support, especially nurturing anti-intellectualism, anti-semitism, and class hatred. (1Cor1:1-30)
Doubtless, xianity still has something to offer as it has for 2,000 years -- but psychological comfort, decent burial of the dead, communal warmth, common action, pathways for employment, and opportunities for "martyrdom" among the heathen are irrelevant to the truth of any hysterical claim made first by Paul or later writers of Jesus legends, whether accepted into xian orthodoxy or not.
Any member of any sect within islam, xianity, judaism, or zoroastrianism (the big-4 monotheisms) can cite his myths, cultic practices, and endlessly *circular* commentary to equal effect. Citing scripture in *defense* of itself is totally illogical.
What uplifts me, what comforts me, what I'm willing to die for . . . is no evidence whatsoever that any otherworldly belief is true or false. Such reasoning exemplifies ignoratio elenchi -- lack of any logical connection between statements about anyone's psychological state and any religious claim.
The monotheists' magical texts are neither self-guaranteeing nor divinely inspired. They are propaganda.
I'd cheerfully proclaim 'Merry Christmas' if it would really save the Republic from its proto-fascist radio demagogs, its murdering xian thugs, its splenetic prelates, its lying hypocritical politicians, its laughably simple-minded editorialists. But, empty xian cliches won't do a damn thing to make Ameristan back into America. (The America of the 1st amendment guarantees 'freedom of conscience' -- the right not to believe and to say so, exercised freely by Franklin, Jefferson, and Lincoln.)
But, Merry Christmas to you, Mr. Henninger.
bipolar2
Posted by: birdfarm | November 23, 2008 12:33 PM
Gotchaye wrote,
This sounded suspect to me so I checked it out.
There is a correlation between poverty and STDs and abortion (see this, this, and this--all articles in peer-reviewed journals). Probably this is due to inadequate access to healthcare. But, the correlation between poverty and homicide is sometimes found to be weak (see this and this), although this study found it to be stronger.
Interesting. It does make sense. Lack of access to healthcare would reasonably result not only in lack of 'family planning' but in STDs going undetected and passed on more frequently. Note that in the UN document in the first reference above,
How different the current U.S. government is... read this article about how anti-sex "pro-life" forces are blocking women's access to reproductive healthcare in the poorest countries in the world...
On another note... Matt Heath quoted:
Wow. Like others, I had only ever heard the second sentence. The first is so much more compassionate... and rings so true. It must be so comforting to think that some magic infinite being cares about human suffering and will one day come to punish the evil and reward the righteous....
Thanks for the post and the discussion.
Posted by: Owlmirror | November 23, 2008 2:22 PM
Case in point: several paragraphs from the Pontifical Biblical Commission on what is acceptable in interpreting Genesis. (Note that it's near the bottom).
When I responded: "I see where the word "pontificate" comes from. blah blah blah blah. What a bloody soporific stretch of stultifying stilted silted sticky sacerdotal stupefacient."; Pilt accused me of having ADHD.
Hypocrite that he is.
Posted by: phantasm | November 23, 2008 2:35 PM
I really think you're reversing the direction of causation. If poverty and disease run rampant, you're more likely to want to pray to a higher power to save you. While this does a great job of disproving the religious right's claim that increased faith will save us, I don't think you can turn around and say that it is causing such abject misery without more evidence. If we fix social ills, people will stop flocking to fairy tales. If we eliminate religion, people are left in shitty situations without hope in a loving God. Fix social problems, and eliminating religion will take care of itself
Posted by: SC | November 23, 2008 2:50 PM
I remember this. :)
Just to be clear on my response: I agreed with what Nick was saying here (although I don't believe sociology to have an especially high proportion relative to numerous other disciplines), and assumed he wasn't generalizing from this to a dismissal of sociology as a whole. Those who do so are usually not worth the time it takes to educate them (and in Scumbag's case, that's already been established).
Posted by: Julian | November 23, 2008 3:28 PM
Ignorance isn't the cause; arrogance is. Most Christians are raised from an early age to look at baptism and "being saved" as a get out of jail free card. They act immorally and stupidly, not because they don't know any better, but because they are taught to believe that their negative behavior will carry no inescapable consequence.
Posted by: Owlmirror | November 23, 2008 3:40 PM
PZ, and the original author, are careful to note correlation rather than causation.
I don't think PZ (or indeed, most atheists) would disagree with this. I certainly don't, not entirely.
(Although there are some more complex and cynical ideas about the relation of religion to social ills, in that I think that religion can indeed make things worse in some cases. See Fighting Words by Hector Avalos for a clearer formulation of some of these ideas. But I would disagree that religion always leads to social situations worsening. At least at the moment.)
Posted by: Piltdown Man | November 23, 2008 4:29 PM
SC @125:
In fairness, Ziggy the Commie Collaborator's prose is impenetrable not because it's incomprehensible but because it's juiceless. 'Unreadable' would have been a better word.
But it's not hard to find examples of authentic gibberish:
Rather than a single equilibrium point, such systems generally have multiple metastable regimes. Within each regime, change may occur, but the set of dynamically important variables and interactions remains fixed. ... Systems with multiple metastable regimes may switch rapidly between them as critical thresholds are passed. Furthermore, hysteresis is common. ...
Owlmirror @15:
That was just a joke. I don't actually believe in ADHD or any of the other 'syndromes' to which I jokingly referred.
Julian @139:
Wait a minute - I thought the big problem with Christians was that they were oppressed by a crushing weight of moral guilt - that they are taught to believe that the slightest transgression will result in them being hurled headfirst into the lake of fire where they will burn for ever and ever.
Come on, atheists, at least get your story straight.
Posted by: Owlmirror | November 23, 2008 4:40 PM
Oh! I assume that you actually meant demonic possession, then?
*snort*. It is Christianity that teaches both of those contradictory ideas, depending on various theological factors, and which is most convenient for some particular situation.
You get your story straight.
Posted by: Kel | November 23, 2008 4:46 PM
Got to enjoy Pilty being here, after all the normal theists that come to soften our view of religion, Pilty is here to remind us of the batshit insanity religion either causes or attracts.
Posted by: emporda | November 23, 2008 4:46 PM
Quite interesting how most people negate the cause
The uSA has about 2,3 Million prinson inmates, this is 9 times the number the European Union has with about 68 per 100.000 inhabitants.
The country ist morally bankrupt, caused by its bigottery
Posted by: emporda | November 23, 2008 4:47 PM
Quite interesting how most people negate the cause
The uSA has about 2,3 Million prinson inmates, this is 9 times the number the European Union has with about 68 per 100.000 inhabitants.
The country is morally bankrupt, caused by its bigottery
Posted by: SC | November 23, 2008 4:53 PM
I have my criticisms of his arguments, but to use MATH as an example of an unreadable [impenetrable, agenda-driven(hard to see how it can be both this and juiceless, but such self-contradiction is typical of you)] sociological work is beyond stupid. (Anyone who doesn't believe me can look it up on Amazon.)
Sure - wait until he's out of town like the coward that you are. Don't worry - I'll be sure to point it out to him when he returns. (And he's not a sociologist, AFAIK.) Scumbag.
Posted by: Wowbagger | November 23, 2008 4:59 PM
Ignore Piltdown Scumbag. He dissembles and obfuscates and rationalises like a catholic priest caught in the confessional with an altar boy.
Posted by: Pacificpearl | November 23, 2008 5:09 PM
Yes Mr Myers, how Christians love to bag secularism for their messes. If there was a purity worth sanctifying there wouldn't have been a splintering in the first place requiring the umbrella of secular moderation to keep things under control - or is that confusing the message with man's far from perfect attempt at interpreting it?
If anything, it's the rampant hypocrisy that infects too many religions that leaves them prone to often fair criticisms. We'd probably find that in locales where spirituality takes on a far more authentic way-of-life oriented form, that that practice of faith does actually positively impact their wider spheres. So, yes a differentiation of how that may be experienced and how major world religions too to an appreciable degree tend to. Would appear a cultural thing, and up to the individual personalities in application of their beliefs, like whether someone is a dominator or meek.
Secularism has its roots in a religious past, has never truly extricated itself from an interconnectivity, as is actually defined by its parts. Fair to say that a dominator or even well intentioned paternalistic outlook hinged in religiosity does wreak considerable havoc. There's something can't quite pin down about religion that too often lets bullies rein. They're not in exclusive territory there though. America has been so damned stupid in who they let be top dog and allow selves to be lied to, yet if it's any comfort obedient Asians allow autocratic rule (yet Catholic inspired people power overthrew this in the Philippines) as do African nations who still have one foot firmly planted in tribal forms of definition. Err, but we're meant to be so evolved as the world's superpower.
No one appeared to pick up through the thread the 'argument' that religion as Piltdown reiterated, may help us cope with violence; inferring at the hands of the heathen, poor, uneducated and non privileged stratas. And if not 'heathen' as such, still the other as in the us'n'them script. After all southern blacks joined churches on this very premise ultimately cognisant a moral high ground.
Religion to help cushion us from 'the violence', eeh?....and the economic meltdown (while we accepted divisions of groaning poverty); the war we had to pick (the fact our leaders were Saddam buddies, in bed over guns'n'oil as with many a Muslim, our tempting fate with our tacky B grade spoofs on kicking his and other Arab butts aside); to keep at bay fear of the odds of a crime happening to us (or again (and again), or to help ameliorate life scarring such incidents may have already inflicted), and of course the energy to keep buried any cathartic realisation that enjoying our relative comfort is key to the problem - the historic, complex yet often simple and brutal, entrenched and far reaching violence WE continue to perpetrate under the cloak of denial.
Doesn't seem to matter whether it's our own internal fortitude we depend on or any belief structure leanings, if your head's in the sand over social inequities, what is the difference? Put it this way, I've seen the difference faith has made in people's lives, and the rub is: for better or worse. Immaterial really because how anyone regardless of their label copes with a monumental collapse, will be seen with hindsight either through the lens of pitiful, pathetic yet logical conclusions or as a divine wake up call. So as we brace ourselves for the roller coaster of the economic shake up that us in the over consuming west will have much farther to fall from, the question is will we humble ourselves and learn the lesson (repent the heedlessness) of not having been kind to our brother.
The only way to cope with the festering manifestations of societies gone mad - which you won't truly know unless you live in a first (or other for that matter) world war zone or your insulated comfort zone has been rocked - is to become part of the solution. Really is obscenely woeful that we go to space, invent the most amazing advances yet still haven't dealt with homelessness/ adequate housing, health nor brought education for all out of the dark ages - thus conspiring to maintain/ deepen the status quo.
Depriving a decent education ensures the fear/ ignorance/ poverty fester factor that does not overly concern a secular society anymore than it did a religious one.
Dig deeper: the horror of drugs today exists because of covert govt policies not only designed to debase along racial/poverty lines (wherever established fault lines can be widened), but as indirect revenue through cosying up with cartels and supplier (arms requiring) nations.
Oh yeah, help us cope with keeping intact the thin veneer of civility to keep the bubbling rage of bigotry from boiling over when we decided, or let be decided for us, that it was much easier to blame the socio/ politically/ economically constructed injustices that blight our otherwise comfortable existences ......on the real victims. And of course, we're all jumping up now declaring we ain't racist, sexist, classist etc.
Yeah sure, there's few who can truly lay claim to not have at least covertly - and this is where religion has taught secular bureaucracies well - benefitted from such exercises of power abuse. So we can distance ourselves from overt bigotry, yet all continue to benefit from or be kept under by the structures that maintain inequality. Influences of religion, secularism or post secular aside, squat has changed on that score....except for when a nation slapped itself outa costly malaise and stood up for The Man who stepped up.
There are otherwise invisible disabilities that aren't really disabilities or mental illnesses at all, but blessings if the world didn't have such a narrowly defined view of 'normal'. Like many forms of discrimination there abounds rampant ignorance and denial that certain neurobiological differences even exist let alone what they mean. Yet prisons and psyche wards are loaded with these socially defined sufferers and it's called ADD. Yet despite the demonization of not so/little children, their parents and controversy around drugging, there is simply no causal link to innate criminality in these groups. In the homeless bracket are people with Aspergers (both are on the autistic spectrum), these categories comprising many of the most gifted people now and in history, including Da Vinci, Einstein, Gates and many more (incl entrepreneurial, computer, academic, engineering, legal, medical and creative fields) for whom the world would not be the one we take for granted if they'd been prohibited from expressing their eccentricities.
It flat out sickens me to read reference to a 'criminal class'. What you are in fact referring to Piltdown, is the fact that our types of societies are structured in a pyramid shape where by design, those considerable numbers 'on the bottom' are relied upon for an exploiting strata above. This 'class' vulture feeds on failing to prevent, exacerbates and would appear to at times maliciously derive pleasure from further perpetrating (the 'morale boosting' indulged in by religious/secular alike) in ensuring the disadvantaged stay so.
This comprises, and within each a variety of splintering roles of (though as a generalisation is not meant to offend/invalidate good apples within and restricted by rotten systems), psychologists, social workers, psychiatrists especially the so called clinical forensic type, teachers, doctors, specialists, nurses, refuge workers and variety of community and quasi or govt funded workers (often buck the trend, yet it's worse when those meant to help, engage in client abuse), police, corrections workers, foster 'carers', child 'safety' officers, lawyers, judges, court and other justice dept workers, legal funding entities, journalists....and more. A host of spin off professions that for whom some, much or all of their income is derived on the spoils of another human's often contrived misery.
Innocent people are incarcerated or otherwise punitively dealt with because of sloppy lazy police 'work' that doesn't look past the supposed obvious (hint the licence of tv points at what should be, especially when dealing with the white collar crimes on Criminal Intent; cold cases etc). Children the western world over are taken (traumatised by the act of unwarranted intervention and then abused in 'care') on fraudulent, frivolous grounds. The tools of which are profiling any combination of vulnerable, poor, struggling, non white, single parents.
Oh and so are religious of the non-looney variety targeted as are parents and/or children with mild often undiagnosed disabilities/learning difficulties and of which says nothing about their parenting - often excellent in the face of injustice. Just that they won't have the millions to defend their families and the truth from a monster that has a direct role in producing the types noted in the study. Yet our farce of a society permits flush abusers to pay their way to sanctioned predation.
State legitimised child theft appears as a uniquely secular crime, with its roots of course in colonial brutalities and forms of socialism (hard for a leftie to admit). It is an industry that is through autocratic carte blanche, deception, manipulation, breaking the law including constantly abusing the rights and snuffing out the voice of suffering children 'in their care', perjury, media blindness and lack of political will, defrauding the tax payer, plus near on total contrived public ignorance.
The fact that child abuse is abhorrent, that we all assume that the depts charged with keeping children safe, and that they too often don't is something that we collectively ignore*. We're swayed by slick pr and shock reports which serve as smokescreen propaganda that obscure leaving blatantly hurting kids in danger and removing 'easy to place' innocents with complying foster fraudsters (those complicit with lies).
The prison complex is another heinous industry of "vigorous counter-strikes" that essentially amounts to a condoned and largely unquestioned (profit/punitive driven) war (against often manufactured victims) within so called civilised nations. Along with all the other economic based ventures that hinder and harm rather than help human development, they will spiral out till the backlash reduces our ignorant greedy empires to catastrophe.
Often it's subsets of religion that help clean up some of these messes, that in turn other adherents deepen. However doesn't matter what part of any culture or group you belong to, it you are part of the middle mediocrity that never bothered to examine why/how things transpired as they have, you're likely to fall prey to accepting the biases/persecutions of blaming the victims as though inherent traits deserving of vilification.
*See www.familyrightsassociation.com re congressional inquiry, www.fightcps.com, there's lots out there. There's also a site on adult children speaking out against cruel court decision ripping them from their caring parent (usually mother) and placing with violent abusive predators.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | November 23, 2008 5:12 PM
You came up with a hypothesis that explains why voter turnout is so low in the USA. I came up with a more parsimonious one, and that one predicts that turnout is much higher in swing states than in safe states, so that turnout in swing states would have to be higher than the national average. Is it?
It probably is causal. We just can't demonstrate that yet.
That depends on the denomination. Most 1) would consider any attempt to accelerate the coming of Judgment Day an attempt to tell God what to do, in other words incredible blasphemy, and 2) believe in Mark 13:32, which says that not even Jesus himself knows when he will return. "The Day of the Lord" is supposed to come "like a thief in the night", without any warning whatsoever, several times in the New Testament.
Those few denominations that disagree, however, are very widespread in the USA...
Fail.
Posted by: bullfighter | November 23, 2008 5:20 PM
Sorry, PZ, but you will one day refer to this post as your greatest embarrassment. Citing the Greg Paul study as evidence for anything is really bad for one's credibility. The study is methodologically invalid in all kinds of ways. I met Greg Paul before he published the study and I tried to reason with him about it, but unfortunately his mindset is that of a deeply religious person. (As much as I think the term "fundamentalist atheist" is absurd, people like GP provide some justification for it.) It was even more unfortunate that he succeeded in publishing it in some second-rate religious studies journal (every field has a "Journal of Otherwise Unpublishable Papers" and I suspect religious studies has a shitpile of those) and attracted media attention. (He said he didn't actively publicize his study to the media. In any case, that was in effect the channel for publication of the strong conclusion which he had had to drop in the peer review process.) Because the paper is so easy to debunk - and the reports about it in the media even easier - it has hurt the atheist and secularist causes. I was hoping that enough time had passed and it was forgotten; the last thing we need is to exhume it.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | November 23, 2008 5:41 PM
And this you call gibberish? Come on. That's dead easy. OK, "dynamically important" is not quite clear to me, and I don't know what hysteresis is, but the rest is crystal-clear. I take it you don't know what "metastable" means?
--------------------
Phew. Pacificpearl, please first figure out what you want to say, and then write it down. Otherwise the result gets extremely long-winded, convoluted, and hard to grasp, as it did in this case.
Posted by: SC | November 23, 2008 6:04 PM
He's just being a scumbag/himself:
http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol12/iss1/art24/
Posted by: Wowbagger | November 23, 2008 6:17 PM
I'm sure in Pilty's 'mind' - though I use the term loosely - theological writing is magically translated from gibberish into meaningful text by their god's
magic powersinfinite wisdom. Which, of course, wouldn't happen when anyone who didn't believe in their god read it - it'd only work for True Believers™.I'm sure I read something to that extent on Ray Comfort's blog.
Considering that these people believe a cracker becomes one of their gods after the
witchdoctor does a voodoo dancepriest performs a ceremony it's not too hard to accept that they'll believe pretty much anything.Posted by: Kel | November 23, 2008 6:29 PM
The time Pilty mentioned he believed that PZ was under demonic posession was the funniest moment I've had on the internet in a long time. It took me about 5 minutes to stop laughing hysterically.
Posted by: facilis | November 23, 2008 6:42 PM
Greg Paul a "social scientist" ..lol. He draws dinosaurs for a living.
This study is a sham. Paul arbitrarily excludes former USSR nations that would contradict his conclusion.Paul also limits the discussion to homicide when he doesn't reveal that crime rates as a whole(taking into account theft, breaking and entering...) are greater according to interpol and International crime victims survey.
Epic fail for secularism (and this post)
Posted by: Kel | November 23, 2008 6:54 PM
And Soviet Union was a secular nation?Posted by: Wowbagger | November 23, 2008 7:03 PM
Facilis,
Yeah, that would totally undermine all the other evidence for the benefits of a secular society. Care to guess what the crime rates of secular countries like Sweden and Denmark are?
Epic fail for you, assclown.
Posted by: bullfighter | November 23, 2008 7:08 PM
No, it is no more an "epic fail" for secularism than Tim Mahoney or Eliot Spitzer are "epic fails" for the Democratic Party. The study can only embarrass those who support it. It would only become an "epic fail" for secularism if most secularists stubbornly defended such studies against reason.Posted by: Piltdown Man | November 23, 2008 7:10 PM
SC @146:
Never read MATH; the one I looked at was called Liquid TImes. In justice, I have to say that this torrent of porridgy prose did contain one vivid and apt series of metaphors. Prof Bauman likened pre-modern man to a gamekeeper, respectfully maintaining an environment whose parameters had been set from on high. By contrast, modern man was a gardener , confidently taking responsibility for designing and shaping his environment according to his own (rationally justified) desires. By contrast again, post-modern man is a hunter struggling to survive by asserting himself against other sin an amorphously hostile and uncertain environment.
Bauman approved of the transition from gamekeeper to gardener, but seemed disconcerted by the latest hunter phase of human development, going so far as to apply the menacing Dantean word inferno to the contemporary societal situation, a word whose theological provenance ironically evoked the pre-modern gamekeeper era.
It occurred to me that Bauman's dismay was that of the eternal Girondin reluctant to admit a ghastly possibility - that the gamekeeper's decision to repudiate his terms of contract and set himself up as a self-employed gardener defined a pattern of rebellion which the hunters merely re-enacted on a universal scale. However respectable his gardening business might appear, however rational and harmonious his garden layouts might seem, the gamekeeper had unilaterally renounced his obligations to uphold the status quo and so effectively turned poacher. By doing so, of course, he had forfeited any right to the Landlord's protection from more cunning and aggressive poachers who might appear on the scene.
Maybe not a sociologist, but a 'social scientist' surely?
+++
Pacificpearl - if "the Man who stepped up" is a reference to this guy, you're probably in for a (yet another?) sombre disappointment. Check this out.
Posted by: Nathan Schneider | November 23, 2008 7:27 PM
This mentions an older study from 2005 that was done entirely with existing polling data. Sociologist Phil Zuckerman has just published a new study with a similar argument in his book Society without God.
Posted by: Piltdown Man | November 23, 2008 7:29 PM
Forgive me -- couldn't resist this (it's by Kipling):
The Gods of the Copybook Headings*
[* "Copybooks disappeared from schoolrooms in Britain and America during, or shortly after, World War II. A copybook was an exercise book used to practice one's handwriting in. The pages were blank except for horizontal rulings and a printed specimen of perfect handwriting at the top. You were supposed to copy this specimen all down the page. The specimens were proverbs or quotations, or little commonplace hortatory or admonitory sayings--the ones in the poem illustrate the kind of thing. These were the copybook headings."]
AS I pass through my incarnations in every age and race,
I make my proper prostrations to the Gods of the Market Place.
Peering through reverent fingers I watch them flourish and fall,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings, I notice, outlast them all.
We were living in trees when they met us. They showed us each in turn
That Water would certainly wet us, as Fire would certainly burn:
But we found them lacking in Uplift, Vision and Breadth of Mind,
So we left them to teach the Gorillas while we followed the March of Mankind.
We moved as the Spirit listed. They never altered their pace,
Being neither cloud nor wind-borne like the Gods of the Market Place,
But they always caught up with our progress, and presently word would come
That a tribe had been wiped off its icefield, or the lights had gone out in Rome.
With the Hopes that our World is built on they were utterly out of touch,
They denied that the Moon was Stilton; they denied she was even Dutch;
They denied that Wishes were Horses; they denied that a Pig had Wings;
So we worshipped the Gods of the Market Who promised these beautiful things.
When the Cambrian measures were forming, They promised perpetual peace.
They swore, if we gave them our weapons, that the wars of the tribes would cease.
But when we disarmed They sold us and delivered us bound to our foe,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: "Stick to the Devil you know."
On the first Feminian Sandstones we were promised the Fuller Life
(Which started by loving our neighbour and ended by loving his wife)
Till our women had no more children and the men lost reason and faith,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: "The Wages of Sin is Death."
In the Carboniferous Epoch we were promised abundance for all,
By robbing selected Peter to pay for collective Paul;
But, though we had plenty of money, there was nothing our money could buy,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: "If you don't work you die."
Then the Gods of the Market tumbled, and their smooth-tongued wizards withdrew
And the hearts of the meanest were humbled and began to believe it was true
That All is not Gold that Glitters, and Two and Two make Four
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings limped up to explain it once more.
As it will be in the future, it was at the birth of Man
There are only four things certain since Social Progress began.
That the Dog returns to his Vomit and the Sow returns to her Mire,
And the burnt Fool's bandaged finger goes wabbling back to the Fire;
And that after this is accomplished, and the brave new world begins
When all men are paid for existing and no man must pay for his sins,
As surely as Water will wet us, as surely as Fire will burn,
The Gods of the Copybook Headings with terror and slaughter return!
Posted by: SC | November 23, 2008 7:29 PM
Blah blah blah. You're far from qualified to pontificate on such matters, Scumbag.*
So what? Sociology was the discipline under discussion. In any event, you've not established by any stretch of the imagination that what you quoted was gibberish, in context or not. It was merely a bit of scumbaggery on your part, which we've all come to expect.
*Perhaps SfO, having installed shelving in a college bookstore, will weigh in soon...
Posted by: facilis | November 23, 2008 7:37 PM
@Wowbagger
[Care to guess what the crime rates of secular countries like Sweden and Denmark are?]
We don't have to guess.You can check the stats here
http://www.verumserum.com/?p=25
From what I see the US does pass Sweden in homicide rate but Sweden does pass us in other categories like theft, assault, sexual assault and overall victimization.Sweden has an overall higher victimization rate.
Posted by: negentropyeater | November 23, 2008 8:09 PM
Faith hurts =
more than 75% of born again christians voting for G.W.Bush
Posted by: Wowbagger | November 23, 2008 8:21 PM
Posted by: facilis | November 23, 2008 8:31 PM
@Wowbagger
[ Well, it's not as if Christians have ever been told they shouldn't murder people, is it?
Oh, wait...]
FBI statistics indicate the majority of of homicides occur due to gang violence in urban areas. I'm going to ask you to be honest and practical. Do you think that this gang violence occurs due to
a)religious affiliation
b)other factors like lack of gun control, illegal immigration, poverty and drug abuse
Which do you feel?
Posted by: Wowbagger | November 23, 2008 8:47 PM
Facilis,
At no point is it posited that religious affiliation causes increased crime; it's more that adhering to it as a belief system is meant to lead to a better, more moral society. The US is considered a strongly christian nation; ergo, it should be a better, more moral society.
And yet it's not. Numerous studies show that the proportion of US prison population features an overrepresentation of christians and an underrepresentation of non-religious, relative to the US population.
Christianity doesn't necessarily make people 'bad'. But it claims to be able to make them 'good', but it's been shown that it fails miserably.
Posted by: facilis | November 23, 2008 9:30 PM
@Wowbagger
[it's more that adhering to it as a belief system is meant to lead to a better, more moral society. The US is considered a strongly christian nation; ergo, it should be a better, more moral society.
And yet it's not.]
But I showed that the overall crime rate of the US was less than the example of Sweden you used.
And I'm going to ask you- do you think the drug lords and gang-bangers committing those homicides are typical church-going Christians? Answer honestly.
And about the prison statistics,Stistics from English and Welsh prisons show that those who are non-religious are 4 times as likely to go to jail that a Christian.
I don't know what you got your survey from.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | November 23, 2008 9:34 PM
If the gang-bangers call themselves Xian, they are Xians. You have to accept everyone who calls themselves one. Otherwise, you run up against the "no true Scotsman" syndrome. You cannot pick and chose your data.Posted by: Kel | November 23, 2008 9:37 PM
In the US prison system, only a tiny fraction of atheists are in there per capita than of religious bent. Now I think this has nothing to do with atheism being better than religion, just that religion targets the stupid and the desperate so of course they'll have a higher crime rate.But to argue about this is to miss the point. Religion prides itself on being a moral beacon for humanity, yet the evidence shows this is the opposite. The point is not that religion makes you evil, it's that it's not the magic answer that it's reported to be. It's time we shifted our thoughts away from religious ownership of morality, and work towards a more secular* society.
*note that secular != atheist.
Posted by: Wowbagger | November 23, 2008 10:32 PM
Facilis wrote:
Why do you have to be 'typical' or 'church-going' to be a christian? I don't believe any of the christian commentators who describe the USA as 'a christian nation' and cite statistics of how large a proportion of the US identify as christian specify that it must be 'typical' or 'church-going' christianity to qualify. As Nerd explained, all it takes to be considered a christian is to say 'I'm a christian'; otherwise you're descending the slippery No True Scotsman slope.
If the drug lords and gang-bangers identify as christian then they are christians for the purpose of analysis.
Here are some figures of US prison population, found here
Response Number %
---------------------------- --------
Catholic 29267 39.164%
Protestant 26162 35.008%
Muslim 5435 7.273%
American Indian 2408 3.222%
Nation 1734 2.320%
Rasta 1485 1.987%
Jewish 1325 1.773%
Church of Christ 1303 1.744%
Pentecostal 1093 1.463%
Moorish 1066 1.426%
Buddhist 882 1.180%
Jehovah Witness 665 0.890%
Adventist 621 0.831%
Orthodox 375 0.502%
Mormon 298 0.399%
Scientology 190 0.254%
Atheist 156 0.209%
Hindu 119 0.159%
Santeria 117 0.157%
Sikh 14 0.019%
Bahai 9 0.012%
Krishna 7 0.009%
Please note where 'Atheist' appears in the list.
Posted by: facilis | November 23, 2008 11:13 PM
@Wowbagger
Don't embarrass yourself
look here
http://christiancadre.blogspot.com/2008/03/bogus-atheist-social-sciences_21.html
That figure you highlighted is only the people who put "atheist" in response to the question of religion.
Your own source reveals that 18381 inmates answered unknown or non-religious. (about 20% of the full total) Why don't we just take all the non-religious people?
And what about those prisons who convert during their time in prison.
http://main.uab.edu/show.asp?durki=87547
Studies show they are less likely to be violent.
Posted by: Kel | November 23, 2008 11:18 PM
Ahh believers, you just can't convince them of anything but the good that Christianity does. If one set if figures doesn't work, look at another and say it's more important. So there's lies, damn lies, statistics, and whatever that facilis uses to justify his own delusion that religion makes someone a better person.
Posted by: Wowbagger | November 23, 2008 11:27 PM
Facilis,
I don't see how I embarrassed myself. Even if you assume that the 'unknown' and 'non-religuous' respondents are all atheists (unlikely), and you add those numbers to the 'Atheist' total you still get fewer than either the 'Catholic' or the 'Protestant' totals alone, let alone all the christian sects added together.
Atheist 156 + unknown/non-religious 18381 = 18537
Catholic = 29267
Protestant = 26162
I'll admit the other study you cited has potential, but it's one study in one prison. Plus the information is gathered, if I interpret the article correctly via self-report ('Inmates were asked about...') - I'd prefer data obtained via other methods.
Posted by: facilis | November 23, 2008 11:59 PM
@Wowbanger
The point is that atheists make up about 3% of the US and non-religious about 9%. So the percentage of non-religious people inside jail is higher than out.
And the percentage of protestants is about 53% while in prison it is about 35%.
So we can conclude that non-religious people are over-represented in prison and Protestants are under-represented.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | November 24, 2008 12:04 AM
Facilis, why don't you do what any good scientist would do. Get a grant to do a proper study, then do the study on a much larger cohort and honestly publish the results. Personally, I am a bit worried about your honesty when it comes to publishing the results. You appear to have a bias.
Posted by: clinteas | November 24, 2008 12:04 AM
facilis,
we can conclude no such thing.
But you probably know that.
Posted by: Wowbagger | November 24, 2008 12:27 AM
Facilis,
Your last post supports my position - that christianity is not in any way helpful in providing a moral and/or ethical framework. If there were fewer christians than atheists in prison then you might have a point - but there aren't. There are far, far more.
Even when you misinterpret data (why do you separate protestants from catholics? Both are christian, just different sects) as you've just done, the numbers are still clearly showing belief as a stronger indicator of criminality than non-belief.
Posted by: Kel | November 24, 2008 12:34 AM
It's funny watching Facilis coming to the conclusion that America is better off than Sweden because Sweden has more general crime, even though the murder rate is much lower. Statistics can be used to represent anything as facilis is showing, just another hack who knows how to manipulate the numbers to suit his own agenda.
Posted by: Owlmirror | November 24, 2008 12:38 AM
Not according to the protestants.
Heh.
Posted by: Wowbagger | November 24, 2008 12:39 AM
Hilariously enough, Kel, if you go to the link he posted in one of his threads it'll show you that Australia is actually the most dangerous country in the world, according to the statistics.
I found that extremely amusing.
Posted by: facilis | November 24, 2008 12:41 AM
@Nerd
[Facilis, why don't you do what any good scientist would do. Get a grant to do a proper study, then do the study on a much larger cohort and honestly publish the results.]
Why don't you go do a proper study?
[You appear to have a bias.]
I don't see you decrying the study PZ cited and its bias. (Greg Paul was writing secularist and anti-Chritian books saying that secular soieties were more moral before he ever did any study)
Posted by: facilis | November 24, 2008 12:48 AM
@Kel
[It's funny watching Facilis coming to the conclusion that America is better off than Sweden because Sweden has more general crime, even though the murder rate is much lower. Statistics can be used to represent anything as facilis is showing, just another hack who knows how to manipulate the numbers to suit his own agenda.]
America tends to have more murders because of gang violence and such.
But he wanted to compare America to Sweden and I showed him the overall statistics. What is wrong with that?
Posted by: Kel | November 24, 2008 12:48 AM
lol, the only thing to be afraid of in Australia is Drop Bears. So it's okay for you to be biased because we aren't calling others out on their bias?Posted by: Kel | November 24, 2008 12:50 AM
The problem with that is it's misleading. Sweden is a much safer place than the United States, yet by counting murder as comparable to minor theft, you can make Sweden look far more dangerous. This is the misuse of statistics to further your own agenda.Posted by: facilis | November 24, 2008 12:55 AM
[So it's okay for you to be biased because we aren't calling others out on their bias? ]
I'm just pointing out inconsistencies
Posted by: facilis | November 24, 2008 12:59 AM
[The problem with that is it's misleading. Sweden is a much safer place than the United States, yet by counting murder as comparable to minor theft, you can make Sweden look far more dangerous. This is the misuse of statistics to further your own agenda.]
What about other things like sexual assault? Aren't those dangerous?
Posted by: Wowbagger | November 24, 2008 1:00 AM
Facilis, the original post includes this:
Emphasis mine - and I believe you yourself found data to support this. The linked article does not mention the relative levels of other kinds of crime, which is what your argument has so far been dependant upon.
Neither PZ nor Greg Paul appear to have made that claim. So far it's only been me who made generalised claims about the difference in crime statistics, and I admit I was wrong to have made an unfounded claim - bearing in mind I'm not admitting to being wrong until I see more data.
But that has no bearing on the original topic - which is that the data support a population's religiosity as indicative of certain specific antisocial behaviours.
Posted by: Owlmirror | November 24, 2008 1:02 AM
PHWEET!!!!!
I call 'Foul'.
The actual text says:
Not "non-religious". No Answer.
The "Orthodox" answer looks a bit low. And why is it not broken out into at least Russian and Greek Orthodox?
I would suspect that there are a lot of Russians in jail who gave No Answer.
What the hell religion is "Moorish"? And for that matter, "Nation"?
Hm.
This looks like this might be the former:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moorish_Science_Temple_of_America
And perhaps the latter is short for this?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation_of_Islam
Yet why are they separate from Islam itself? Are they really that distinct?
Posted by: Emmet Caulfield | November 24, 2008 1:06 AM
A post on a Christian blog? Colour me unimpressed. Let's use the source they claim to use [1] and examine your claims...
The prevalence rates (USA/Sweden) are: theft of car, 1.1/0.5 [1,p.50]; theft from car 5.2/4.2, [1,p.54]; theft of motorcyle, 0.3/0.6 [1,p.58]; bicycle theft, 5.0/2.9 [1,p.60], strongly correlated with ownership rates [1,p.63]; burglary 2.5/0.7; theft (incl. pickpocketing) 4.8/2.4 [1,p.71].
Continuing: robbery 0.6/1.1 [1,p.74], assaults and threats 4.3/3.5 [1,p.81].
Continuing: sexual assault against women 1.4/1.3 [1,p.78]
The overall rate of victimisation in Sweden is lower than in the United States (p.43), but not significantly.
In other words, in every category you have listed, except the subcategories of two-wheeled vehicle theft and robbery, you are wrong.
1: Van Dijk, van Kesteren, and Smit, Criminal Victimisation in International Perspective: Key findings from the 2004-2005 ICVS and EU ICS, Boom Legal Publishers, The Hague, Netherlands, 2008. Available from: http://rechten.uvt.nl/icvs/news.htm#Report
Posted by: Kel | November 24, 2008 1:08 AM
Indeed they are. Just as regular assault is. But to add up all numbers together and compare the two per capita is misleading. This is why statistics are such a hard tool to use properly, they can be misused by anyone who has an agenda. In this case, despite the massive murder rate in the United States, you are arguing that Sweden is more dangerous because it's got a higher overall level of crime. You need to include the severity of crime, the reporting rates, the way the data was compiled, whether the same types of data are included.That's the problem when you are changing the data set. Murder rates are comparable, overall crime in a society is more diffuse and harder to represent accurately. It's hard enough to deal with a single set of statistics, don't blend & mesh.
Posted by: facilis | November 24, 2008 1:17 AM
[This is the misuse of statistics to further your own agenda.]
I'm not trying to further any agenda. He claimed that Sweden was better off and I compared statistics and showed him the only category that US led Sweden in was homicide and Sweden had us beat in every other one. No manipulation involved
Posted by: Kel | November 24, 2008 1:22 AM
Yet it seems that was a lie as Emmet pointed out above.Of course homocide is a huge factor in the safety of society. Having a slightly higher theft rate does not make up for the glaring difference in murder rate.
Posted by: facilis | November 24, 2008 1:23 AM
@Emmet
I and the guys at veritas were using the 1999 figures. You appear to use a different year.
But I'm glad you agree that overalll crimerates aren't that much different
Posted by: Emmet Caulfield | November 24, 2008 1:27 AM
It's very difficult indeed to make meaningful international comparisons of crime statistics because of, inter alia, different definitions in different jurisdictions, different rates of reporting and recording, different social attitudes, etc. Interpol removed the per country crime statistics from their website in 2006 for exactly this reason -- people comparing apples and oranges.
Ireland (nice little Catholic country that it is) tops the poll in many categories in ICVS-5, but the actual crime statistics don't bear out the survey. I put it down to the fact that we like to bitch :o)
Murder is somewhat, but not entirely, exceptional, since the definition of murder tends not to vary so much from one country to another. In addition, murder is much less likely to go undetected/unreported or be miscategorised than, say, having one's wallet stolen. This is, most likely, the reason why Paul used murder alone.
Posted by: Kel | November 24, 2008 1:27 AM
Except Sweden has less than half the murder rate...Overall statistics may be similar, but the murder rate is a biggie. This is the importance of weighted statistics.
Posted by: Owlmirror | November 24, 2008 1:31 AM
Looking at the actual numbers, it certainly looks like you lied outright.
USA beat Sweden at every type of crime except motorcycle theft and robbery.
Posted by: Emmet Caulfield | November 24, 2008 1:38 AM
I used the most recent ICVS. There is no ICVS report or data from 1999.
I draw no such conclusion.
Posted by: facilis | November 24, 2008 1:41 AM
[Looking at the actual numbers, it certainly looks like you lied outright.]
No I didn't look at the Interpol data and the 1999 International crime victims survey. Emmet used a completely different set.
Posted by: Emmet Caulfield | November 24, 2008 1:41 AM
In particular, the crime rates were, on balance, higher in the USA than in Sweden for every broad category which he explicitly listed and claimed to have data-based knowledge of.
Posted by: Kel | November 24, 2008 1:48 AM
Caught out lying there facilis, what a surprise...You do know the difference between "no answer" and "not religious" right?
Posted by: Emmet Caulfield | November 24, 2008 1:50 AM
I wonder if the guys compiling the "rebuttal" did either: they don't provide a reference for their Interpol data and Interpol's international crime statistics haven't been publicly available since 2006.
There is no such survey.
Which set did you use? You said:
This suggests that you used the same source as they did, but they claim to have used unspecified Interpol data and ICVS.
So, again, which data did you use?
Posted by: Owlmirror | November 24, 2008 2:03 AM
The first sentence appears to be missing some punctuation, and interpolating that which is missing could change the actual meaning radically.
Try again. And try not to lie.
Posted by: facilis | November 24, 2008 2:08 AM
You accused me of lying.
I didn't.Look at the Interpol data and the 1999 International crime victims survey displayed on the site. Emmet used a completely different set.
(Sorry about the punctuation.
Posted by: Emmet Caulfield | November 24, 2008 2:15 AM
Where is this data available from? The original report, not "processed" by anyone.
For the third time, there is no such survey.
Still waiting for you to tell us what data led you to your Sweden vs. US claims, which we'll be forced to conclude were bullshit unless you can substantiate them.
Posted by: Wowbagger | November 24, 2008 2:22 AM
His data come from this blog which links to the 'International Crime Victim's survey', which is here - but it won't load for me so I can't tell you much about it, such as whether it actually exists or not.
Anyway, screw the US; according to the graphs, Australia is the scariest place to live. You'd think I'd have noticed by now, 'since I live there...
Posted by: Emmet Caulfield | November 24, 2008 2:26 AM
Well, it wasn't me who said that, but I think it's a reasonable accusation: you made a specific assertion about crime rates in Sweden vs. the US, which we know to be contradicted by ICVS-5. You claim this assertion is backed by 1) a document (1999 ICVS), which we know not to exist, and 2) mysterious Interpol data, which we know to be extraordinarily difficult to gain access to?
If you make the documents available to us and they contain the data that you claim they contain, I'm sure the charge of being a liar will be retracted immediately.
Posted by: Emmet Caulfield | November 24, 2008 3:35 AM
Yes, I got that.
The point is that if you actually Google for their sources, you find that one has been superceded by a later report that directly contradicts them (so the dishonest fuckwads pretend it doesn't exist), and the other is not referenced.
In other words, the "debunking" is a crock of shit: it uses out-of-date and occult sources to attack arguments Paul is not reported to have made.
I've no idea whether Paul makes his case or not (I haven't read his paper), but the central notion, that certain social indicators are unfavourably (for the religious apologist) correlated with religiosity, is at least superficially plausible from publically available data. It was never my point to support Paul, but to underline my suspicion that facilis never read the source material, took the blog post at face value, and was bullshitting. I consider that point made.
Posted by: clinteas | November 24, 2008 5:54 AM
Good on you Emmet,that was well done.
Posted by: Kel | November 24, 2008 6:19 AM
You are lying by equating non-answer to non-religious, then building a case around that. That was incredibly dishonest behaviour, and a gross misuse of statistics.Posted by: clinteas | November 24, 2008 6:25 AM
Shit yeah,all these areas in downtown Sydney,Melbourne or Perth you cant go without a gun or a bodyguard or both,is scary as hell.....
Posted by: Wowbagger | November 24, 2008 6:39 AM
Well, I'm lucky I'm in Adelaide - all those churches must mean I'm safe, right? Though it does have that somewhat bothersome track record of serial killers...
Posted by: clinteas | November 24, 2008 6:56 AM
Took the parents to the Adelaide hills last year when it was 35 or so and the power went out,now that was scary lol....
Maybe if you want to compare crime rates,just take a stroll through Copenhagen,Stockholm,Cologne,Sydney in the middle of the night,and compare your experience with a walk through any major US city....
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | November 24, 2008 9:13 AM
I think it was just being naive: he couldn't imagine why anyone who had a religion wouldn't proudly proclaim it whenever asked.
That said, facilis does exhibit confirmation bias...
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | November 24, 2008 9:41 AM
Facilis #182. I'm not a sociologist. I have no interest in doing a study, as I still have a day job doing science. You are the one complaining, so I challenged you to do the right thing scientifically, and actually prove your point. You dodged the question, which means you are merely a troll.
As far as I could tell, the data was honest. Besides, we Pharyngulites know religious people are often bad, but try to hide it behind a facade, and use the "no true scotsman" at the drop of a hat. Such a correlation does not surprise us. Atheists are very mild mannered people.
Posted by: Jake | November 24, 2008 9:42 AM
Emmet,
I'm a straight man and (assuming you're a man), your absolutely wonderful smackdown of that fraud has made me more than a little attracted to you.
All joking aside, the preposterous idea that Australia is more dangerous than the US (or indeed the most dangerous country) is one of the best gags I've heard in quite some time. The only possibility is that it's taken from the perspective of a pot of beer. If you're a beer in Australia, yep, you're screwed.
I continue to want to disbelieve that people like Pilty and facilis actually exist, I truly do. However it's people like this that prove themselves time and again that they're utterly unable to be persuaded by any data (that those of us with two cents of reason to rub together as 'real') that make me incredibly depressed.
I'm sure if Christianity and it's adherents were actually practiced what they preach (hah!) then yeah, it might be a better world, but it's the times when they mumble 'Except when you really wanna' after 'Thou shalt not kill.' that completely derail their whole defense of 'We're more moral.'
Sigh
Posted by: Phoenix Woman | November 24, 2008 10:54 AM
Waiting to see if The Facile One has a response to this. It ought to be interesting.
Posted by: facilis | November 24, 2008 12:46 PM
[You are lying by equating non-answer to non-religious, then building a case around that. That was incredibly dishonest behaviour, and a gross misuse of statistics.]
Ok a bunch of prisoners are asked to give their religion on a survey. A large number of prisoners give none.
These prisoners are either
a)highly religious people trying to conceal their religious identity
b)don't really belong to any religion
I wonder which?Hmm....
Posted by: facilis | November 24, 2008 12:49 PM
[All joking aside, the preposterous idea that Australia is more dangerous than the US (or indeed the most dangerous country) is one of the best gags I've heard in quite some time. ]
I know. I was quite surprised when i heard the US had such high homicide rates. I've never heard of a murder in my area the entire time I've lived in the US. Just goes to show how statistics can surprise you
Posted by: facilis | November 24, 2008 12:57 PM
It surprises me how many people here think they've "debunked " anything. My points about the problems with GP's survey still stand and no-one has responded.
And Emmet just cause you can't access a certain survey doesn't mean someone else at the blog made it up.
And I don't see how the differences between the ICVS for 1999-2003 count (unless there was a massive upswing in secularism in Sweden in those years) when we try to establish a correlation between religion and crime.
I think I'll quote you
[The overall rate of victimisation in Sweden is lower than in the United States (p.43), but not significantly.]
Right. there is a significant difference in religiousity between Sweden and America but the difference in overall crime victimisation rate is not significant. this is all I wanted to say. Point made.
Posted by: facilis | November 24, 2008 1:02 PM
[I continue to want to disbelieve that people like Pilty and facilis actually exist, I truly do. However it's people like this that prove themselves time and again that they're utterly unable to be persuaded by any data (that those of us with two cents of reason to rub together as 'real') that make me incredibly depressed.]
*sticks fingers in ears* PZ's "social scientist" is so reliable that i wont accept contradictory data from sources like Interpol and ICVS.*sticks out tongue* And won't bother to look at the problems anyone point out with the survey
Posted by: Tom | November 24, 2008 2:31 PM
#12 makes the moral assumption that abortion is a bad thing. Obviously if a woman practices a religion that prohibits an abortion then she is much less likely to get one, don't you think? If a woman thinks that an abortion is a perfectly normal medical procedure then theoretically she would have no problem with having one. So if the per capita rate of abortion is lower in a highly religious state then this tells me nothing. What about the teen pregnancy rate? Here are the top 10 states:
1. Nevada (113)
2. Arizona (104)
3. Mississippi (103)
4. New Mexico (103)
5. Texas (101)
6. Florida (97)
7. California (96)
8. Georgia (95)
9. North Carolina (95)
10. Arkansas (93)
Posted by: Tom | November 24, 2008 2:33 PM
And here are the top ten states for teen live births:
1. Mississippi (71)
2. Texas (69)
3. Arizona (67)
4. Arkansas (66)
5. New Mexico (66)
6. Georgia (63)
7. Louisiana (62)
8. Nevada (61)
9. Alabama (61)
10. Oklahoma (60)
Posted by: Emmet Caulfield | November 24, 2008 2:39 PM
facilis: Exodus 20:16.
Posted by: Mike in Ontario, NY | November 24, 2008 3:41 PM
I think I heard someone comment on Democracy Now a week or two ago about how the US "Bible Belt" corresponds perfectly with the "Lynching Belt".
I have no issue whatsoever with the crazy batshit that religious people believe. Until, that is, they try to codify their batshit into MY public policy. We need GOOD sex education in this country. It kills me that the anti-abortionists are ALSO anti-sex ed, the one and only way to curb unwanted pregnancies. Simply denying the evidence and shooting the messenger never helped anything or anyone.
Before my mother was "saved", she wasn't a racial, class, or sexual bigot. Now she is. In my opinion, becoming a Christian made her a worse Christian than she was as an unbeliever.
Posted by: Kel | November 24, 2008 4:49 PM
Nice false dichotomy there, a justification for your poor rationalisation. How many people were simply not surveyed? How many chose to conceal their religious beliefs? To take everyone who didn't answer as non-religious is a gross misuse of statistics, though you've been quite happy to do so all throughout this thread.The fact is you don't know how many of them are non-religious, not even those who made the survey know. It's unknown. You are making a huge assumption and from there running with it to prove your point. You could have just said that the unknown makes the data unreliable but no. You had to form the conclusion based on your assumption that anyone who doesn't answer for whatever reason has to be atheist and then used that to condemn atheists as more violent. You don't know the first thing about using statistics, so I'd suggest dropping the whole holier than thou attitude of yours.
Posted by: Feynmaniac | November 24, 2008 4:52 PM
Farcilis,
Really, if someone doesn't give an answer the only possibilities are they are highly religious or not religious? They can't be somewhat religious? It can't be they simple object to answering it because they don't feel it's anyone's business?
No, but this does,
Notice the lack of a "1999 International crime victims survey".
Posted by: Feynmaniac | November 24, 2008 4:56 PM
Wowbagger,
This despite the fact that Australia has 70,000 Jedis. Or maybe because of it?
I say we run a survey to see how many Jedis in Australia have fallen to the dark side of the force. The Jedi mind trick might make this survey tricky....
Posted by: Wowbagger | November 24, 2008 5:02 PM
Actually, now that I think of it, it was only a couple of months ago that a bikie gang member got shot in front of his house, one street over from my place; two weeks ago a Somali teenager was stabbed to death by another Somali teenager in a shopping mall about a block from my office.
So despite Adelaide being a fairly quiet place (with a lot of churches) there is still violent crime going on - but it doesn't seem to happen to random passers-by; it's more about gangs or race.
Posted by: Facilis | November 24, 2008 5:20 PM
[The fact is you don't know how many of them are non-religious, not even those who made the survey know. ]
Yes I don't know which was why I specified non-religious or unknown in my post.
[It's unknown.]
I agree.
[You had to form the conclusion based on your assumption that anyone who doesn't answer for whatever reason has to be atheist and then used that to condemn atheists as more violent.]
I never condemned atheists as more violent. I was showing Wowbagger how his figures were faulty.
Naturally if someone has no religion the would put none when someone asked for their religion.
And note according to wowbagger's figure we would have to conclude protestants are quite moral- Based on the total percentage in jail compared.(And that's not counting those who were converted to protestantism after they got in).
Hooray for protestants
Posted by: Wowbagger | November 24, 2008 5:32 PM
They still constitute at least 35% of the prison population - and you're still making the assumption that none of the 'no answer' people are, in fact, protestant.
Hardly a cause for celebration - or for considering the religion to be in any way beneficial to morality.
Posted by: Kel | November 24, 2008 6:10 PM
Again, because you don't seem to understand. "No answer" != "Non-religious". They are two different phrases and by no way mean the same thing.
And there was a category for that, 156 people chose that category. Not answering is not non-religious. Stop dancing around the issue.As you said:
Your own source reveals that 18381 inmates answered unknown or non-religious. (about 20% of the full total) Why don't we just take all the non-religious people?
Stop lying facilis, your bullshit won't work here.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | November 24, 2008 6:19 PM
Facilis stop lying? Then what would be the point of posting here. His/her bias showed many posts ago.
Religious people tend to be stupid. Cops only catch stupid criminals. So it it isn't a surprise that religious people are over represented in jail. There's some type of bias at work.
Posted by: Peregrinus | November 24, 2008 6:51 PM
Yes, it is a powerful testament to why dinosaur doodlers should not presume to engage in statistical analyses.
Posted by: Wowbagger | November 24, 2008 7:15 PM
As opposed to christian apologists?
Posted by: Kel | November 24, 2008 7:19 PM
Yeah, but it's important to call out those who do wilfully lie - if for nothing else than to show that we are onto them. facilis not only used statistics in a dishonest way, but changed what the statistics represent which it deliberately being deceptive. Not answering is not the same as being atheist, it's unknown data pure and simple. The only conclusion that could have been drawn from that data is that it's not complete, nothing more.It's like an exit poll after the election asking people who they voted for. If someone chooses not to answer, it's not indicative that they didn't vote. Rather some things are personal where people don't feel it's anyone elses business. A non-answer is not indicative of anything, the answers we do have show a general trend, but they must be taken with some scepticism and uncertainty. But changing no answer to non-religious is outright lying, facilis has demonstrated here that he/she doesn't mind being another Liar for Jesus™
Posted by: Kel | November 24, 2008 7:22 PM
And this is powerful testament to the fact that ad hominem is not a valid rebuttal.Posted by: Peregrinus | November 24, 2008 7:27 PM
I have an advanced degree in statistics. Do you?
Posted by: Kel | November 24, 2008 7:30 PM
And now an appeal to authority, you just like to rack up the logical fallacies.Posted by: Janine ID AKA The Lone Drinker | November 24, 2008 7:37 PM
Let's see; is that lies, damned lies and advanced degree in statistics?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | November 24, 2008 7:39 PM
By Twain, I think she got it.Posted by: Kel | November 24, 2008 7:44 PM
You win the "post of the day" awardPosted by: Emmet Caulfield | November 24, 2008 7:45 PM
Then you're ideally positioned to publish a comprehensive rebuttal of Paul's paper, rather than the vacuous straw-men and ad hominem attacks that we've seen heretofore. We await your contribution.
Posted by: Peregrinus | November 24, 2008 7:47 PM
Don't worry; it's on my to-do list.
Posted by: SC | November 24, 2008 7:58 PM
Well, you'd better hop to it, since PZ's back and likely to notice soon that you're a banned morpher:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/11/mormon_meddlers.php#comment-1200364
Posted by: facilis | November 24, 2008 7:58 PM
Could people please read the link he sent?
The question asked for their "religious affiliation". Those who considered atheism as their religious affiliation put that on the card and those with no real religious affiliation probably didn't answer.I suppose some people might have n=been religious but wanted to conceal their religious identity or didn't feel like answering(those that didn't answer were about 20%)
Wowbagger was the one that presentedthe faulty sstatistics. I used what he gave me. I'm sure wowbagger will concede those statistics are worthless though.
Posted by: Wowbagger | November 24, 2008 8:00 PM
Why do you assume it was you to whom I was referring? It wasn't; my comment was aimed at Facilis, for his dubious analyses upthread.
Persecution complex much?
Posted by: Kel | November 24, 2008 8:06 PM
Probably? You are making another assumption there. You don't know how many where religious or not, you are imposing your own will. And you changed the presentation of the data to support your view. If you copied "unknown / no answer", it presents a very different meaning from "unknown / no religion". It's unknown data, pure and simple and you inferred that not only that no answer meant non-religious but that unknown was also to be taken as no religion. You've deliberately misrepresented data to support your point, the least you could do is man up and admit it instead of weaseling around showing any culpability. You suppose they might be? On what grounds do you again base your assumption? You are still placing your own assumptions on the data, and it still doesn't change the fact that you deliberately tried to mislead us by changing "no answer" to "non-religious". You lied, just man up already. The statistics aren't worthless, there's a degree of uncertainty to them. It's like saying that 20% of people didn't want to be part of a phone poll therefore all answers given are invalid.Posted by: facilis | November 24, 2008 8:07 PM
[They still constitute at least 35% of the prison population - and you're still making the assumption that none of the 'no answer' people are, in fact, protestant.
Hardly a cause for celebration - or for considering the religion to be in any way beneficial to morality. ]
Well we make up 53% of the majority and about 28% of the total in prison.We are rather underrepresented in prison (dontcha think)
Posted by: facilis | November 24, 2008 8:12 PM
[The statistics aren't worthless, there's a degree of uncertainty to them. It's like saying that 20% of people didn't want to be part of a phone poll therefore all answers given are invalid.]
A question
Do you think the people who do not belong to any religion have a greater chance of not answering a question about religious affiliation?
Do you think people who do belong t a religion are more likely to?
Posted by: Wowbagger | November 24, 2008 8:16 PM
No, you misused what I gave you by claiming the 'unknown/no answer' respondents must be atheists - a ridiculous assumption. Choosing not to answer =!= atheism or even no religion. It means 'chose not to answer'.
As for 'faulty data', well, it's from an analyst at the Federal Bureau of Prisons, according to the site I found it at. I agree it's not great, but it's still a better indicator than that which you provided.
Posted by: Kel | November 24, 2008 8:18 PM
I honestly don't know, all I could do is make an assumption. And that's all you could do as well, you don't know better.You are still evading that you changed "unknown / no answer" to "unknown / non-religious", which is trying to deceive us. Are you going to admit you lied or carry on with your holier than thou attitude? It's not about what assumptions and conclusions you made, it's that you deliberately misrepresented data in order to make a point.
Posted by: Wowbagger | November 24, 2008 8:32 PM
I also reject how you conveniently excluding catholics, i.e. those who don't fit your definition of True Christians™.
If you're going to try and split those hairs you're going to want to find a better way of delineating than simply 'protestant', since there are plenty of sects with numerous significant ideological differences between them. If you can lump them all in together you're going to have to include the papists as well.
Posted by: Owlmirror | November 24, 2008 8:53 PM
Ah, but papists are not Christians! They are actually Satanists, and therefore... are secretly atheists!!11!one!1
Posted by: Feynmaniac | November 24, 2008 10:15 PM
No, you used a study that didn't exist. The ICVS website has no "1999 International crime victims survey". It numbers its studies 1 through 5 for the years 1989, 1992, 1996, 2000 and 2004/05, respectively. You have not still not explained yourself.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | November 24, 2008 11:30 PM
Looks like facilis is just another Liar for JebusTM. (s)he will say/do anything to try to make religious people look better. Citing a paper that doesn't exist is a classic avoidance technique. The lack of honesty when caught demonstrated to us the lack of character, including not bearing false witness. The whole "no true Scotsman" play another classic lie. Facilis, at least come up with a new wrinkle if you are dumb enough to reply again.
Posted by: Wowbagger | November 25, 2008 12:00 AM
Nerd, all you have to do is glance at Facilis's blog to get an understanding of what he (I believe it's 'he') is about: in one post he lists some 'facts', the first of which is that Jesus died by crucifixion - because the crucifixion is multiply attested [to] in and outside the Bible.
So, he exhibits a history of trusting dubious, irrelevant and mostly debunked sources. Why would he stop now?
Posted by: facilis | November 25, 2008 12:35 AM
[No, you misused what I gave you by claiming the 'unknown/no answer' respondents must be atheists - a ridiculous assumption. ]
Where did I make this claim? All I said was mostlikely that they were non-religious. But all I ask is that you see the faults.
Posted by: facilis | November 25, 2008 12:38 AM
[Nerd, all you have to do is glance at Facilis's blog to get an understanding of what he (I believe it's 'he') is about: in one post he lists some 'facts', the first of which is that Jesus died by crucifixion - because the crucifixion is multiply attested [to] in and outside the Bible.]
Yes, Do you want to respond to my challenge. I think you would lose on the crucifixion though.From the New estament documents to the patristic writers and even Roman and Jewish sources the crucifixion is well-attested.
[So, he exhibits a history of trusting dubious, irrelevant and mostly debunked sources. Why would he stop now?]
And you trust a study dome by a man who draws dinosaurs for a living- need I say more?
Posted by: facilis | November 25, 2008 12:41 AM
@Peregrinus
You don't have to do any response. Professional statisticians like Scott Gillbreath (of magicstatistics.com ) and George Gallup have torn that study to shreds and show hw it does ot live up "to scholarly muster".
Posted by: Kel | November 25, 2008 12:47 AM
Right here: Your own source reveals that 18381 inmates answered unknown or non-religious. (about 20% of the full total) Why don't we just take all the non-religious people? You said "non-religious" when the study says no such thing. It says there is "no answer", you put the word non-religious in there, not us.Posted by: Kel | November 25, 2008 12:49 AM
You can say ad hominemPosted by: Anton Mates | November 25, 2008 4:52 AM
David M,
"Hysteresis" just means that the behavior of the system depends on past states as well as the present ones. The canonical example is a thermostat which turns your heater on when the temperature drops below (say) 35 degrees, but doesn't turn it off until the temperature climbs above (say) 40 degrees. In that case you can't predict whether your heater will be on or off at 37 degrees unless you know what the temperature was a little while ago.
The bit Piltdown quoted is perfectly coherent, as you say.
Posted by: Feynmaniac | November 25, 2008 5:49 AM
The quote Piltdown provides seems to make sense. If you want something totally baffling;
That 94 word sentence got Judith Butler first prize in The Bad Writing Contest. If anyone knows what the fuck it's saying please let me know.
Posted by: Wowbagger | November 25, 2008 6:14 AM
Facilis - out of interest's sake, you do know what the word 'facile' means, don't you?
Anyway, as to whether Jesus existed or not - knock yourself out: The Jesus-myth hypothesis
Posted by: Wowbagger | November 25, 2008 6:30 AM
Sorry, link fail.
Facile - see definition 1.
Posted by: SC | November 25, 2008 6:50 AM
Anton Mates and Feynmaniac,
The selection Scumbag quoted is perfectly coherent. In case you missed it, please see the link I provided @ #152 for the source and further evidence of Piltdown's villainy.
Posted by: Feynmaniac | November 25, 2008 7:42 AM
Piltdown Man, naming yourself after a fraudulent man-orangutan-chimpanzee fossil is quite appropriate.
Posted by: Feynmaniac | November 25, 2008 7:52 AM
Is the Nicholas M. Gotts of the article in question the same Nick Gotts that posts here?
Posted by: facilis | November 25, 2008 8:09 AM
From the link you provided-
"Authors such as Earl Doherty, Robert M. Price and George Albert Wells have recently re-popularised the argument. HOWEVER IT IS NOT SUPPORTED BY THE VAST MAJORITY OF BIBLICAL HISTORIANS OR SCHOLARS"
Posted by: Kel | November 25, 2008 8:14 AM
Woah, biblical scholars don't buy that Jesus could have been made up? Who'd have thunk it. Next you'll be telling me that the vast majority of Muslim scholars think that Muhammad was God's final prophet...
Posted by: SC | November 25, 2008 8:16 AM
I would be extremely surprised if there were two of them in Aberdeen (see his comment @ #103) with such similar interests and knowledge. :)
Posted by: facilis | November 25, 2008 8:35 AM
[Woah, biblical scholars don't buy that Jesus could have been made up? Who'd have thunk it.]
Yeah, I mean Robert Price is the only one with a Phd in NT studies that supports it.You think more people with credentials would support it if it was a valid theory.
[Next you'll be telling me that the vast majority of Muslim scholars think that Muhammad was God's final prophet...]
Too bad for your analogy that most New testament scholars aren't Christian
Posted by: Kel | November 25, 2008 8:53 AM
Really now?It's too bad you are a proven liar, that you are willing to say anything to support your own agenda.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | November 25, 2008 9:02 AM
One problem with Liar for JebusTM is that they can't realize when they are in over their heads. Facilis, the first law of holes is when in too deep, quit digging. The dirt you throw up is falling on your head, so time to quit digging. You failed due to being intellectually challenged.
Posted by: pharynguphat | November 25, 2008 10:09 AM
N of mindless fuckbotism = 274 and counting.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | November 25, 2008 10:17 AM
Oh look it's pharyngufuckhead. How many comments have you made now and still not a single intelligent argument or point?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | November 25, 2008 10:34 AM
Pharynguphat, your mess-up of blockquotes shows us what a fuckbot you are. You need a brain to think rationally. Get one. Then post something cogent.
Posted by: Owlmirror | November 25, 2008 11:48 AM
So... most of those Christians who actually study the evidence most carefully are inspired to deconvert? And most of those non-Christians who study the evidence are not inspired to convert?
I already knew it, but it's good to see that most scholars agree that the evidence is very unconvincing.
However, I am pretty sure that those non-Christian scholars would agree that among the other reasons that they find the evidence unconvincing is that the crucifixion is not "well-attested".
http://www.ebonmusings.org/atheism/camel.html
http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/ShreddingTheGospels.htm
Posted by: Owlmirror | November 25, 2008 11:55 AM
Well, if he can be trusted to count correctly, 274.
However, I wouldn't trust him. I'm pretty sure that it's much more than that.
Posted by: Piltdown Man | November 25, 2008 12:54 PM
Anton Mates @263:
It may be coherent (I'll take your word for it) but it's rebarbative. If the emperor is wearing clothes, they're bloody ugly.
SC @267:
What is truly villainous is attempting to apply pseudo-scientific concepts to human society.
Posted by: SC | November 25, 2008 12:59 PM
Ignorant scumbag is ignorant scumbag.
Posted by: Owlmirror | November 25, 2008 1:03 PM
Much like religions do, then.
(Hark at the man who believes in demons using the phrase "pseudo-scientific")
Posted by: facilis | November 25, 2008 2:09 PM
[So... most of those Christians who actually study the evidence most carefully are inspired to deconvert? And most of those non-Christians who study the evidence are not inspired to convert?]
I might as well say "well most people are Christian so they see the evidence and they converted".I'm sure you know that there are a lot of factors like emotion, coincidence...etc that lead to conversions and deconversions besides evidence.
[I already knew it, but it's good to see that most scholars agree that the evidence is very unconvincing.]
Umm, no your own source said that most New testament scholars find the Jesus myth unconvincing.
[However, I am pretty sure that those non-Christian scholars would agree that among the other reasons that they find the evidence unconvincing is that the crucifixion is not "well-attested".
http://www.ebonmusings.org/atheism/camel.html
http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/ShreddingTheGospels.htm]
So don't bother to read PhD and New testament scholars like I did and do the research. 2 links is enough to refute me (1 of them is from some guy who read Doherty's poorly reasearched book and thinks he found the holy grail )
Posted by: Anton Mates | November 25, 2008 2:30 PM
Piltdown,
The mathematical community apologizes for offending you with dynamical systems theory. I guess.
Posted by: Owlmirror | November 25, 2008 2:58 PM
But most Christians do not see the evidence, nor do they study it, nor did they convert — they were indoctrinated. So that would be false.
What I wrote was true, and followed logically from assuming that your statement, "most New testament scholars aren't Christian", was true. Was your statement true? Or were you lying about that?
Wasn't my source. Do you find it hard to pay attention to who wrote what?
As best as I can see, none of those who argue against Doherty have a problem with his research, but rather with his interpretation of that research.
Do you know of anyone who points to problems in the research itself?
My original point was that regardless of whether or not Jesus was a myth, those who claim that the crucifixion was "well-attested" are simply wrong, and that is backed up by the research.
Feel free to find an actual refutation of the research.
Posted by: Peregrinus | November 25, 2008 3:31 PM
Anyone who doubts the historicity of Jesus is a damn fool. The gospels, Josephus, and Tacitus are enough to establish it, let alone other documentation.
And yes, I know Josephus has been tampered with in the Greek, but a) people overwhelmingly tend to alter accounts that are already in the text, instead of creating them whole cloth and b) there is an Arabic version without the obvious glosses.
Really, I can't fathom the sheer stupidity involved in doubting the historicity of Jesus.
Posted by: Piltdown Man | November 25, 2008 3:37 PM
Anton Mates @285:
Your sarcasm is misplaced. I don't doubt that mathematicians, sorry, "the mathematical community" have developed a serious branch of mathematics called dynamical systems theory. Good for them. May their research in that field prove fruitful. And if much of their work seems obscure to me, I daresay that's down to me being a layman in the field. No problem.
The thing is, when I look at the essay in question, I see precious little mathematics. I see lots of sub-Marxist drivel ("the major institutional innovations in this model are transformations between predominant "modes of accumulation" that modify the workings of the iteration cycle. The two most important occurred when chiefdoms developed into states, which happened on several independent occasions, and when capitalism developed in Western Europe. Chiefdom-state transitions replaced primarily normative systems of obligation based on real or mythical kinship, with tributary systems in which labor, taxes, and tributes are exacted by systematic armed coercion from slaves, peasants, and weaker neighboring societies, as the main way for elites to accumulate resources. ...") semi-camouflaged under a language of mock-scientific/arithmetical exactitude and pretence at system.
(Of course I could be wrong.)
Posted by: Peregrinus | November 25, 2008 3:38 PM
Quit while you're behind.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | November 25, 2008 3:43 PM
Peregrinus, then show us the evidence outside of the bible for the crucifixion. You are wrong until you prove yourself right.
Posted by: Kel | November 25, 2008 3:43 PM
The gospels are evidence of Jesus?What I find amusing is that Christians put so much into the historicity of an obviously mythical character. I'd bet there was a Jewish cult leader who said a few good things, but it takes a huge leap to place historical Yeshua with mythical Jesus. Walking on water, healing the sick, magically feeding the poor, turning water into wine, raising the dead and finally conquering death? Mythology. Having a historical Jesus does not mean the gospel accounts are any more credible.
Posted by: Peregrinus | November 25, 2008 3:51 PM
I provided you with two sources outside the Bible, Josephus and Tacitus.
Posted by: D | November 25, 2008 4:03 PM
The bible is a more reliable source than those, which is not saying much.
http://www.ffrf.org/fttoday/2006/march/barker.php
Posted by: Peregrinus | November 25, 2008 4:06 PM
I don't need a link to that clown. I already addressed the corruption of the Greek text of Josephus upstream.
Posted by: Kel | November 25, 2008 4:08 PM
Yes, your link trumps all Peregrinus...
Posted by: Owlmirror | November 25, 2008 4:11 PM
Wrong, again.
Besides, I was not arguing against historicity, only against
Wrong, again.
The gospels contradict each other and the proper historical details of the region.
Tacitus cannot be relied on in establishing the historicity of Jesus. Note that he wrote about the Christians living in Rome, and what he says about their founder was arguably derived from Christians themselves!
http://jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/CritiquesRefut3.htm
And as for Josephus...
Will you think for two whole seconds? An Arabic translation from the tenth century must be a translation from an earlier Greek source, which would not be immune from having been tampered with.
As noted here, even the reduced portion of the "Testimonium Flavianum" did not make sense in context.
http://ebonmusings.org/atheism/camel2.html#josephus
Note also the point that Origen, a devout Christian apologist and scholar, when citing Josephus never referred to the sections that mention Christ.
Sheesh.
Posted by: Peregrinus | November 25, 2008 4:13 PM
It wasn't just any old link, "mate." It was a link to a New Testament scholar who provided Shlomo Pines' translation of the Arabic version of Josephus.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | November 25, 2008 4:13 PM
Last I knew the Josephus quote was a fraudulent later add on and is considered as such by most scholars. Tactitus got his info from the corrupted Josephus. Now show us some unrefuted evidence.
Posted by: D | November 25, 2008 4:17 PM
Which is also corrupt, as detailed in many links already provided.
Posted by: Peregrinus | November 25, 2008 4:18 PM
I suggest reading some scholarly works on the topic. Scholars think Josephus wrote about Jesus while acknowledging the interpolations in the Greek text and Tacitus wrote his account independently of Josephus.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | November 25, 2008 4:20 PM
All you have are godbots who must prove historical Jebus. Not any help.
Posted by: Peregrinus | November 25, 2008 4:22 PM
Please blockhead. I've read Shlomo Pines' book. The only alteration in the Arabic version is the possible mistranslation of a word from Syriac to Arabic and the loss of a phrase.
Don't pretend that you know what you are talking about because you read some crap on the internet.
Posted by: RickrOll | November 25, 2008 4:24 PM
since we're on the subject of the Gospels, it would be interecting to note that Jesus lies in John, chapter (from what i recall) 13. yep, lies. very interesting food for thought. In later translations (this was KJV, so fairly old), they changed it from, "i will not go down to the feast" to "i wii not YET go down to the feast." Dubious, very dubious.
Posted by: facilis | November 25, 2008 4:25 PM
[Do you know of anyone who points to problems in the research itself?]
Ben Witherington III has a critique of Doherty's poor research up.
[My original point was that regardless of whether or not Jesus was a myth, those who claim that the crucifixion was "well-attested" are simply wrong, and that is backed up by the research.]
I presented the patristic writers ,The New testament documents, Josephus , Tacitus and Lucian of Samotosa. You have not dealt with any of those.
Posted by: Kel | November 25, 2008 4:26 PM
So the whole historicity of Jesus comes down to obviously mythical stories written almost 50 years later, a passage from a historian over 60 years later that by all consensus was tampered with in the 4th century and another historian who wrote almost a century after the supposed event? Fuck, I'm convinced. Nevermind the incredulous nature and the wild claims of the life of Jesus, a few guys who never met him said it so it must be true!!!
Posted by: Peregrinus | November 25, 2008 4:27 PM
You've already proved you are an idiot. Now you are just being gratuitous. Dr. Alice Whealey earned her doctorate from Berkeley and her book on the "Testimonium" is quite good.
Dan Barker does not even come close to those qualifications, and it shows.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | November 25, 2008 4:28 PM
Facilis, Josephus was a later add-on, and the other two got their information from Josephus. Still a Liar for JebusTM. In order to stop lying to us, you have to stop lying to yourself first.
Posted by: facilis | November 25, 2008 4:30 PM
[Last I knew the Josephus quote was a fraudulent later add on and is considered as such by most scholars.]
Well you know wrong. I suggest you consult studies on the subject by Louis Feldman. Most scholars accept that Testimnium passage is genuine with a few interpolations(few suggest it wholly unreliable). All accept that the Jamesian passage is authentic.
[Tactitus got his info from the corrupted Josephus.]
You guys better get your timeline straight. Tacitus wrote in the 2nd century and another guy claims Josephus was only corrupted in the 4th century
Posted by: Peregrinus | November 25, 2008 4:31 PM
Dimbulb,
The Greek version of Josephus has an authentic nucleus and you need to demonstrate Tacitus' dependence on Josephus.
Posted by: D | November 25, 2008 4:31 PM
Blind assertions aren't very convincing. Don't pretend you know what you're talking about until you can actually rebuff the criticisms raised by the "crap on the internet", because if you can't defend your position against crap, then all you have is worthless shit.
Posted by: Kel | November 25, 2008 4:33 PM
The new testament documents? Where the first gospel was written 40 years after the event by people who had never met Jesus, then subsequently copied into the other gospels? Yeah, those are convincing.Someone completely defies the laws of physics and the best we have is 2nd and 3rd hand eyewitness accounts of those trying to sell their God to a pagan population... Christianity is nothing more than a cult for greedy gullible fools.
Posted by: Peregrinus | November 25, 2008 4:35 PM
Logic, arithmetic, reading, or, indeed, anything requiring more than the reptilian complex, is not their strong suite. I suggest resorting to pictograms.
Posted by: facilis | November 25, 2008 4:36 PM
[Note also the point that Origen, a devout Christian apologist and scholar, when citing Josephus never referred to the sections that mention Christ.]
That is untrue. He does mention the Jamesian passage about Jesus. Look up Origen's commentary on Matthew online
Posted by: Kel | November 25, 2008 4:40 PM
Still doesn't change the fact that you believe the most miraculous story in the history of mankind based on 2nd, 3rd and 4th hand eyewitness accounts well after the supposed time the event took place. Quite funny that people are so eager to believe something so implausible purely on testimony of people who didn't even witness. Hell, even now we look at eyewitness accounts as anecdotal evidence - the weakest form of evidence.
Silly Christians, myths are for kids.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | November 25, 2008 4:41 PM
Same old arguments that have been refuted time and time again here. Your god doesn't exist. Jesus was a myth. What part of this do you have trouble with?
Posted by: Peregrinus | November 25, 2008 4:46 PM
Bearing your testimony ad nauseam does not make it true. So sorry.
Posted by: Wowbagger | November 25, 2008 4:46 PM
Peregrinus wrote:
Lucky you didn't include typing and/or spelling.
Posted by: John Morales | November 25, 2008 4:47 PM
Peregrinus&Facilis: So, instead of citing other accounts, you invoke the argument from authority. Facile allusions to recondite evidence, but never a citation.
As Nerd says, show us, don't just allude.
PS your would-be bombastic orotundity is amusing.
Posted by: Wowbagger | November 25, 2008 4:48 PM
Of course, if you'd criticised me personally for an inability to cut and paste you'd be on firmer ground...
Posted by: Kel | November 25, 2008 4:48 PM
And you appealing to anecdotal evidence written decades and even centuries after the fact doesn't make it true either. You still believe in an implausible event based on 2nd, 3rd and 4th hand eyewitness testimony...Posted by: Peregrinus | November 25, 2008 4:52 PM
Ex post facto history was exceedingly common in Antiquity and it is not necessarily unreliable.
Posted by: Kel | November 25, 2008 4:55 PM
You are talking about an implausible event. When one dies, that is it. The end. You are talking about someone conquering death and walking among the living. What's being proposed is scientifically impossible, the implausibility of the whole resurrection demands a greater evidence than 2nd hand anecdotes.Posted by: RickrOll | November 25, 2008 5:00 PM
nope, chapter 7. way off lol.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=16v2Mp-QuRo
kel, scientifically unfeaseable, not impossible.
Posted by: John Morales | November 25, 2008 5:01 PM
Great. [Christian religious] history is not necessarily unreliable. I like that admission.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | November 25, 2008 5:01 PM
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Carl Sagan
So where is your extraordinary proof?
Posted by: Wowbagger | November 25, 2008 5:03 PM
Of course, even if incontrovertible evidence of the existence of someone named Yeshua existed, and all historians agreed upon it, it still doesn't guarantee that he said the things attributed to him or was punished in any way by either (or both) the Jewish and Roman authorities - it and certainly doesn't authenticate the performing of miracles.
But the bigger question is that if we say the he did exist and did all the amazing things he's alleged to have done, why aren't there more accounts? Why are you left scrabbling for 2nd, 3rd and 4th hand accounts and discredited references?
He performed miracles, after all - that's the sort of thing that people talk about, and other people write down at the time. Surely someone so amazing would have had word about them travel far and wide to the other communities in the region.
You should be waist-deep in stories from numerous sources - not desperately sifting through parchment for any scrap of support for his existence, accepting anything that even seems to be alluding to the possibility he might have existed.
Posted by: Kel | November 25, 2008 5:05 PM
It goes against the basic tenets of biology, and the laws of physics. Our understanding of reality would have to be wrong for it to apply. Though I guess whether we call it an impossibility, implausibility, or infeasible, it doesn't change the point. The resurrection of Jesus is far too beyond the scope of observed reality to leave historical proof of the event to 2nd hand eyewitness testimony written decades after the event.Posted by: RickrOll | November 25, 2008 5:12 PM
They kill people in the OR all the time Kel. bring them right back. Now it would take an amazing act of Star-Trekkery to heal jesus after 48 ours of death, but i imagine it could be done. Now, all the time he was wandering around afterwards, THAT'S impossible.
In response to the 2nd, 3rd, 4th hand stuff: Where's the Gospel of Jesus? Or even the Gospel of Joseph, something. In all his followers, every one of them was illiterate? None of them said, "O Lord, please tell me everything that i may write it down for others to beleive!"?
Posted by: Wowbagger | November 25, 2008 5:22 PM
If there was a Gospel of Jesus the early church leaders no doubt surpressed it because it contradicted their principles - just as it would contemporary church leaders'.
There is no better evidence against christianity than christians themselves.
Posted by: John Morales | November 25, 2008 5:28 PM
RickrOll,
1. No, they don't kill them. That's the whole point of operating - to keep them alive.2. Really. Super-science demortified Jesus? You find this plausible?
Posted by: Peregrinus | November 25, 2008 5:39 PM
Please, enlighten us; I am especially interested in reading how the Resurrection violates the laws of physics.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | November 25, 2008 5:41 PM
Peregrinus, you are making the claim for the resurrection. The burden of proof will always be on you. Show us how it is possible. Welcome to science.
Posted by: Emmet Caulfield | November 25, 2008 5:43 PM
Yes, except that according to the Gospels, Jesus was only up on the cross for 3-6 hours, not long enough to die, and the original Greek word translated as "resurrection" might equally have been translated as "resuscitation". Even if one stipulates that the Gospels are somewhat historically accurate (quite a stretch, of course), one plausible explanation is that Jesus was comatose, rather than dead, when taken down from the cross and later spontaneously woke up in the tomb. That version is not far beyond the scope of observed reality but, of course, it ain't no miracle either.
Posted by: Peregrinus | November 25, 2008 5:45 PM
A) Jerusalem was destroyed not once, but twice, within 100 years of Jesus' life and death.
B) The materials used for writing in ye olden times were not especially durable. We are fortunate in that the desert clime/sands preserved texts that would otherwise have been lost.
C) Writers often did not preserve copies of their source material.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | November 25, 2008 5:47 PM
Peregrinus, you are merely describing your troubles find proof. Still no proof exists. Time to quit.
Posted by: RickrOll | November 25, 2008 5:48 PM
oh come on, you people need to lighten up. What's to say, wowbagger, that ther Gospel of Jesus wouldn't have Replaced the other 4 gospels? After all, that is precisely what i mean by a Gospel of Jesus, a narrative by Jesus himself or one of his close followers. I'm assuming had such a document existed, then it would have been accepted and the other Gospels might not have existed at all.
My mistake John, they Die all the time in the OR. they are pretty good at bringing them back. What are defribulaters for? CPR? I'm using a very loose sense of the word "dead"
"Really. Super-science demortified Jesus? You find this plausible?"
at a propability index in the 1/ 15^9,856,392,085,673,992,750 area, yes. so plausible, no. Could it be done? Yes, nearly anything can be done. oh and it was closer to 36 hours, not 48. Friday late afternoon to Sunday morning. i don't know how big of a difference it makes, maybe bumps the last few digits of the improbability down to 2,642 lol.
Posted by: Peregrinus | November 25, 2008 5:51 PM
Actually, the claim within the context of this discussion is that the Resurrection violates the "tenets of biology" and the laws of physics. Kel needs to provide support for that claim.
The dinosaur coloring book you own does not qualify you as a scientist.
Posted by: Kel | November 25, 2008 5:52 PM
Biology is built on physics. You violate the laws of biology, you violate the physics that underlies them. People don't die in the OR, they come close to death but not die.Posted by: RickrOll | November 25, 2008 5:55 PM
Thanks Caulfield. But i have to point out the brutal flogging they gave him before hand was what did him in, not the short period on the Cross. Often, it was the former that essentially killed them.
What pisses me off is that it was against Roman law to remove a body when it is crucified. The last bit of the humiliation was that carrion birds would come down to have dinner. What's more, placing him in a tomb seems very very highly suspect.
He was dead; even if he was comatose, the stabbed him with a spear and his blood had already separated. If that was wrong he would have bled to death.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | November 25, 2008 5:57 PM
Peregrinus, the discussion is a subset of the existence of Jesus. You are still required to show proof that things happened as written, including the resurrection. The only way out for you is to drop the idea.
Posted by: John Morales | November 25, 2008 5:58 PM
Here's what we're talking about: decomposition. Kinda hard to fix.
Posted by: Wowbagger | November 25, 2008 5:58 PM
But wouldn't the events described in your bible have been so amazing that word of them would have travelled well beyond Jerusalem? There were Romans and Greeks in the middle east; they'd have gone back and told stories about this man with magical healing and catering and fig-tree-smiting powers and someone would have thought it worth putting quill to papyrus.
Well, perhaps not in Rome - since they'd already heard similar stories about Mithras. Funny, that.
Posted by: Kel | November 25, 2008 6:02 PM
Love how you are stalling on my claim about death being final. Isn't that the whole point of Christianity, to stop death from being final? That if you believe in Jesus you will not die but have eternal life?
If you want to do the experiment yourself, here you go. Take a cat, whip the motherfuck out of it then put it on a cross. Pierce it with a spearlike object. Make sure that animal is dead. Now put the dead cat in a box and leave it for a few days. Come back and see whether the cat has vanished or like biology states it would the dead form has started to decompose.
The resurrection goes against one of the most self-evident truths of life, if you are born you will die. Are you going to get hung up on that claim as a way to avoid facing up to the fact that you believe on decades later 2nd hand anecdotal evidence that someone beat that?
Posted by: CJO | November 25, 2008 6:08 PM
Ben Witherington III has a critique of Doherty's poor research up.
Witherington's work is useless. If you're a Christian, and don't want a single one of your baseless preconceptions about the formation of the NT writings challenged, he's your guy. I have read several of his books, and found nothing but an uncritical, credulous rehashing of centuries of apologetic handwaving. (A case in point: he relegates to a footnote an exceedingly brief mention of the frankly glaring fact of the disagreements between Acts and the letters of Paul where they treat the same events.) Hardly one to talk about the poverty of another's research.
That is untrue. He does mention the Jamesian passage about Jesus. Look up Origen's commentary on Matthew online
Here 'tis (the passage from Origen):
This is practically a slam-dunk case against your contention that "[the]Testimnium passage is genuine with a few interpolations" (a contention I always found dubious on the basis of parsimony alone. The parts that generous scholars leave on the grounds that the style and diction are consistent have style and diction so generic as to be consistent with any Greek prose of the type.)
Anyway, why would Origen content himself with this James fellow (keeping in mind that the "called the Christ" bit is almost certainly another little Christian cookie) when he had a direct reference to the messiah himself? And furthermore, going back to the James passage itself in Antiquities, if you remove the "called the Christ" bit, just provisionally, which at least you must entertain with an open mind, it becomes much more likely that we're talking about the brother of Jesus, the son of Damneus who is mentioned in the same passage.
Posted by: SC | November 25, 2008 6:09 PM
The arguments of Peregrinus and facilis have been dead for some time. The stench of their decomposition is overwhelming. Will they attempt a miraculous resurrection? Stay tuned to Faith Hurts, daily on SBC.
Posted by: RickrOll | November 25, 2008 6:12 PM
Kel @343: NOOOOOOOOOOOOO! SPARE THE KITTENS! Crucify the chihuahuas instead!
Posted by: RickrOll | November 25, 2008 6:18 PM
I still don't know how facile guy can take any of this seriously after Jesus himself lies in John Ch.7. So, First Mithras, then he steals the birthday of another Pagan god. Way to be original Jesus.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | November 25, 2008 6:19 PM
It's not just risen from the dead, it's risen from the dead and then transported off to heaven.
Unless you are claming the Zombie Cadaver of Jesus is physically walking around on earth
Posted by: Emmet Caulfield | November 25, 2008 6:21 PM
Rickr0ll @339,
You misunderstand me a little, I think. I don't believe there's sufficient evidence to conclude that Jesus even existed or that any of the things that the Gospels assert happened to him ever actually happened at all. I think it much more likely that Jesus is a myth, invented to interpolate moral lessons, expressed as folk parables, from oral tradition into a more engaging continuous narrative.
Clearly, our experience and all evidence is that if one dies, one does not ever become undead later. However improbable it might be, owing to the injuries that you point out, that he was comatose when laid in the tomb is infinitely more plausible than that he was actually dead. A non-miraculous explanation is better than a miraculous one, but it punctures the notion of Jesus' divinity.
As Conan Doyle would have it, when you've eliminated the impossible, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truth.
Posted by: Anton Mates | November 25, 2008 6:45 PM
Piltdown,
Why not post that part, then? This--
"the major institutional innovations in this model are transformations between predominant "modes of accumulation" that modify the workings of the iteration cycle. The two most important occurred when chiefdoms developed into states, which happened on several independent occasions, and when capitalism developed in Western Europe. Chiefdom-state transitions replaced primarily normative systems of obligation based on real or mythical kinship, with tributary systems in which labor, taxes, and tributes are exacted by systematic armed coercion from slaves, peasants, and weaker neighboring societies, as the main way for elites to accumulate resources...."
--looks like pretty straightforward socio/anth talk to me. You may disagree with what it says--I have no informed opinion one way or the other--but it's hardly gibberish.
Posted by: Brownian, OM | November 25, 2008 6:51 PM
a⋅pol⋅o⋅gist
/əˈpɒlədʒɪst/
-noun
1. one who expects another to accept a religious claim based on evidence of such little rigour that they themselves would not accept it were it to be used in defense of a different god
a⋅pol⋅o⋅get⋅ics
/əˌpɒləˈdʒɛtɪks/
-noun (used with a singular verb)
an act which relates to thinking in much the same manner that masturbation relates to sex
Posted by: SC | November 25, 2008 6:55 PM
Brownian rocks.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | November 25, 2008 6:57 PM
Amen sister! Great definitions.Posted by: Brownian, OM | November 25, 2008 6:59 PM
Well, I am quite practiced in the art of, er, apologetics.
Yeah, let's call it that.
Posted by: Emmet Caulfield | November 25, 2008 7:05 PM
Brownian, the Ambrose Bierce of Pharyngula?
The Devil's Thesaurus entries for apologetics and apologist could be equally amusing.
Posted by: SC | November 25, 2008 7:10 PM
Hard to believe you're not finding physical, um, evidence on a more regular basis.
(I actually mean that. Same thing with Emmet. I don't get it. We love cute, funny, smart guys. WTF?)
Posted by: RickrOll | November 25, 2008 7:12 PM
i'm not certain of the improbability of a person who lost all thier blood, fell into a very short coma, and wnadered around for 40 someod days afterwards as compared to my particular scenario. All the individual parts of your argument aren't implausible, so i must assume that 1/ 12^3,779,408,577,548,958,590 to be more realistic. Not infinitely, but suffiecently. I concede.
Posted by: Peregrinus | November 25, 2008 7:17 PM
Not remotely. It is only a "slam dunk" against those who think the Greek text we have is exactly what Josephus wrote.
Posted by: facilis | November 25, 2008 7:19 PM
[Clearly, our experience and all evidence is that if one dies, one does not ever become undead later.]
What?? Are you restricting what is probable to your experience? If so let's just throw out the American Civil War, neither you nor I "experienced that".
And you have yet to show that it is impossible for resurrections to happen.You may believe so on your blind faith in naturalism but if you're not a naturalist i see no reason to think so. I would say most reasonable people should be agnostic on it.
Posted by: Peregrinus | November 25, 2008 7:20 PM
Brownian is Ambrose Bierce after an anvil fell on his head. Twice.
Posted by: Kel | November 25, 2008 7:21 PM
Even if Josephus wrote t hat Jesus tap-danced on the back of an elephant while reciting the lords prayer, it doesn't make the story any more plausible. You've got Josephus talking 60 years after the supposed death of Jesus, 20 years after the first Gospel was written down. Christianity and the myth of Jesus was well in circulation by then, his testament does not make the impossible event of conquering death any more plausible.
Posted by: CJO | November 25, 2008 7:21 PM
Ex post facto history was exceedingly common in Antiquity and it is not necessarily unreliable.
To the contrary, history per se, of any sort, was exceedingly rare in antiquity. Furthermore, none of the gospels (canonical or apocryphal) meet the definition anyway. Whatever the reality of events in c.30 CE Galilee, the authors of the gospels were clearly not interested in writing in the historical mode (or even in the [Hellenistic] biographical mode, despite Luke's borrowing of some common tropes from that form).
The gospels are theological fictions, written for the twin purposes of explicating scripture in light of the cataclysmic upheaval of 2nd Temple Judaism and passing along a new genre of wisdom literature that over generations was syncretized and attributed to a founding figure (a practice "exceedingly common in antiquity"). Midrash is probably the closest literary equivalent.
This alone doesn't mean Jesus was a mythical figure. (Plenty of fiction is built around a kernel of truth.) But it's fully consistent with the hypothesis that he was, and it invalidates the gospels as a relevant source of historical information. We need to look outside of scripture for that, and, as discussed above, there simply is no extra-scriptural evidence that doesn't come with pretty serious doubts.
And then there's Paul. Shall we go there next?
Posted by: RamblinDude | November 25, 2008 7:21 PM
Brownian rocks
Brownian motion. (heh) Endlessly entertaining
Posted by: Peregrinus | November 25, 2008 7:24 PM
I am familiar with the ancient historians, which is how I know you are full of ****. Even sober histories contain apologia.
Posted by: Piltdown Man | November 25, 2008 7:25 PM
Emmet Caulfield @349:
Didn't Conan Doyle also believe in fairies?
"The impossible often has a kind of integrity to it which the merely improbable lacks. How often have you been presented with an apparently rational explanation of something which works in all respects than one, which is just that it is hopelessly improbable? Your instinct is to say, 'Yes, but he or she simply wouldn't do that.' ... The [impossible] merely supposes that there is something we don't know about, and God knows there are enough of those. The [improbable], however, runs contrary to something fundamental and human which we do know about. We should therefore be very suspicious of it and its specious rationality ... If it could not possibly be done, then obviously it had been done impossibly. The question was how?"
Posted by: Peregrinus | November 25, 2008 7:28 PM
But it would make it pretty awesome.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | November 25, 2008 7:28 PM
Pilty and Peregrinus, your god is imaginary. Just between your ears. So nothing is gained by pretending gospels/dogma mean anything.