Demarcation against Religion: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Philosophy of Science » Demarcation against Religion » Demarcation against Religion

Demarcation against Religion
Is it in vain?

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Demarcation against Religion

wuliheron
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 02, 2003
Location: Newport News, Va

Total Topics: 15
Total Posts: 4148

Posted 06/24/09 - 11:58 AM:	#11
No, whether people are religious or not is most certainly not simply a case of how much freedom the individual enjoys. For example, today Muslim clerics run Iran dictating everything from commerce to what you can say out loud. In the wake of the recent riots they have even forbidden saying, "God is great" out loud! Note that the Iranian clerics also came to power when the people no longer trusted their government. Nor did I say "...religion is merely a source of moralizing mythology..." For example, as with any other school of thought religion is also often used as a political tool (God is on our side, etc.) As for why the notion that dinosaur bones might be some sort of divine test of faith might be less satisfying than a scientific explanation, like religion itself, whether you find it more or less satisfying is a question of personal taste. For myself, I find scientific explanations much more satisfying because they produce information that is useful to anyone. In surveys religious americans often disagree with the conclusions of scientists, but admit that the practice of science generates useful information. If the sciences did not generate useful information then I suppose all but a few people would relegate it to the dust bin. Certainly there are more interesting forms of entertainment available.

thewatcher
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 19, 2009

Total Topics: 13
Total Posts: 225

Posted 06/24/09 - 12:15 PM:	#12
wuliheron wrote: No, whether people are religious or not is most certainly not simply a case of how much freedom the individual enjoys. For example, today Muslim clerics run Iran dictating everything from commerce to what you can say out loud. In the wake of the recent riots they have even forbidden saying, "God is great" out loud! Note that the Iranian clerics also came to power when the people no longer trusted their government. Nor did I say "...religion is merely a source of moralizing mythology..." For example, as with any other school of thought religion is also often used as a political tool (God is on our side, etc.) It was your suggestion, not mine. Your explanation of why religion is less practiced in countries that employ a greater degree of economic and social planning was absurd. People in communist countries are not (or at least not necessarily) irreligious by choice and certainly not because their governments/societies fulfill the needs that religion once fulfilled... Their governments prohibit them from expressing religiousity for ideological reasons. wuliheron wrote: As for why the notion that dinosaur bones might be some sort of divine test of faith might be less satisfying than a scientific explanation, like religion itself, whether you find it more or less satisfying is a question of personal taste. For myself, I find scientific explanations much more satisfying because they produce information that is useful to anyone. In surveys religious americans often disagree with the conclusions of scientists, but admit that the practice of science generates useful information. If the sciences did not generate useful information then I suppose all but a few people would relegate it to the dust bin. Certainly there are more interesting forms of entertainment available. Whence your criticism of religion then? To oversimplify somewhat, if both the scientific and religious worldviews are merely ways of rendering our experiences meaningful, how can you favor one over the other? Are you merely saying that science is more useful (that is, science gives us tools while religion doesnt)? If so, I must ask, why have tools? Why is the worldview that happens to be most productive of technological development necessarily the best one?

wuliheron
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 02, 2003
Location: Newport News, Va

Total Topics: 15
Total Posts: 4148

Posted 06/24/09 - 04:00 PM:	#13
thewatcher wrote: It was your suggestion, not mine. Your explanation of why religion is less practiced in countries that employ a greater degree of economic and social planning was absurd. People in communist countries are not (or at least not necessarily) irreligious by choice and certainly not because their governments/societies fulfill the needs that religion once fulfilled... Their governments prohibit them from expressing religiousity for ideological reasons. I agree that people in communist countries are not necessarilly given a choice to practice any religion and the state has a high degree of control over economics, but as my example of Iran demonstrates the same exact things are often true for religious countries as well. In capitalistic countries like the US it is arguably the seperation of church and state, learned the hard way, that supports their economic freedoms. Likewise, there is more than mere anacdotal evidence that socialists tend to be less religious. As I already mentioned, even in socialist countries where freedom of religion is practiced there are fewer religious people. In addition, surveys of people in communist countries like China that have recently openned their markets also support the idea that religion is often used to instill values when the government becomes perceived as less reliable for this purpose. When asked a significant number of modern Chinese that have converted to Christianity freely admit that they chose to convert because they no longer trust the government to instill values in their children. Furthermore, they often admit to choosing Christianity in particular, even though it is not a traditional Chinese religion, because it has a proven track record in capitalistic societies. As I already pointed out, it is possible to find a happy middle ground among all these extremes. Socialist countries like Sweden, the most oft touted example, avoid the extremes of both laze fare capitalism and totalitarian communism. Freedom of religion is practiced and most of the population tends to describe themselves as "spiritual" rather than religious. thewatcher wrote: Whence your criticism of religion then? To oversimplify somewhat, if both the scientific and religious worldviews are merely ways of rendering our experiences meaningful, how can you favor one over the other? Are you merely saying that science is more useful (that is, science gives us tools while religion doesnt)? If so, I must ask, why have tools? Why is the worldview that happens to be most productive of technological development necessarily the best one? They are not merely means of rendering our lives meaningful, religions are overwhelmingly political organizations which today still promote inequities and are often anti-science. No doubt if the US did not maintain seperation of Church and state homosexual behavior and teaching the theory of evolution would be illegal in most states because they contradict a single religion.

thewatcher
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 19, 2009

Total Topics: 13
Total Posts: 225

Posted 06/24/09 - 05:14 PM:	#14
wuliheron wrote: I agree that people in communist countries are not necessarilly given a choice to practice any religion and the state has a high degree of control over economics, but as my example of Iran demonstrates the same exact things are often true for religious countries as well. In capitalistic countries like the US it is arguably the seperation of church and state, learned the hard way, that supports their economic freedoms. Likewise, there is more than mere anacdotal evidence that socialists tend to be less religious. As I already mentioned, even in socialist countries where freedom of religion is practiced there are fewer religious people. I fail to see how the example of Iran has any bearing upon the point you made earlier, which was that capitalism engenders religiosity while socialism and communism somehow render religiosity superfluous. If anything, the example of Iran invalidates that initial observation by pointing out that religiosity can be prevalent in non-Capitalist societies. wuliheron wrote: In addition, surveys of people in communist countries like China that have recently openned their markets also support the idea that religion is often used to instill values when the government becomes perceived as less reliable for this purpose. When asked a significant number of modern Chinese that have converted to Christianity freely admit that they chose to convert because they no longer trust the government to instill values in their children. Furthermore, they often admit to choosing Christianity in particular, even though it is not a traditional Chinese religion, because it has a proven track record in capitalistic societies. If you say so.... A link to the studies in question would be appreciated. wuliheron wrote: As I already pointed out, it is possible to find a happy middle ground among all these extremes. Socialist countries like Sweden, the most oft touted example, avoid the extremes of both laze fare capitalism and totalitarian communism. Freedom of religion is practiced and most of the population tends to describe themselves as "spiritual" rather than religious. Whether or not this is a happy medium as far as religiosity goes is very much debatable. Why is being "spiritual" preferable to being the adherent of an organized religion? wuliheron wrote: They are not merely means of rendering our lives meaningful, religions are overwhelmingly political organizations which today still promote inequities and are often anti-science. No doubt if the US did not maintain seperation of Church and state homosexual behavior and teaching the theory of evolution would be illegal in most states because they contradict a single religion. What an obscene collection of generalizations. Religion is most assuredly a means of rendering our lives meaningful, as is science, as are a number of other worldviews and elements of worldviews. This does not mean they are not politically or socially important. Quite the contary. Surely religions are political.... but so too is everything else. Science is a highly political force and scientific notions and worldviews have profound and, at times, horrific impacts on the social and political conditions of our world. Heidegger's discussion of the the role of Machination (that is, scientific reductionism) on the Holocaust(/Shoah) is an excellent example of this sort of thing. Lets take anti-science: The Roman Catholic Church, the largest Christian denomination in both the US and the World at large, is hardly anti-science, being as it accepts (and in fact went a long way towards creating) evolutionary theory, physics, astronomy and so on. The Church patronizes the sciences through generous funding of hundreds of major and well respected universities world wide, as well as providing scholarships for countless scholars and endowments for a variety of programs and institutes of arts and sciences worldwide. The Vatican observatory has become a noted patron of astronomy and theoretical physics and routinely sponsors conferences and engages in productive dialogue with secular scientists, even going so far as to invite thinkers from such avowedly humanistic institutions as Oxford's Future of Humanity Institute. And, then, of course, there are the range of similar contributions made by protestant churches, Jewish and Muslim groups and so on. Likewise, a similar case can be made for the role religions play in promoting charity, equality and so on. A vastly disproportionate percentage of schools, hospitals, orphanages, charities, rehabilitation centers and so on are either of a religious affiliation or have their origins in some form of religious practice. Religion has been the driving force or rallying ground for a number of important socially progressive initiatives both in the US and in the world at large. The civil rights movement is an excellent example, as are the progressive movements that followed the industrial revolution. And all of this only scratches the surface of the positive contributions made by religion. Even science itself was only made possible by the intellectual, cultural, social and political resources of religious groups. Thus, while I appreciate your pragmatist approach to evaluating religion and science, I think that, if you take a more holistic view, you will find that religion is in fact more valuable, overall, than the scientific reductionist view that you seem to advocate.

wuliheron
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 02, 2003
Location: Newport News, Va

Total Topics: 15
Total Posts: 4148

Posted 06/25/09 - 01:30 AM:	#15
thewatcher wrote: I fail to see how the example of Iran has any bearing upon the point you made earlier, which was that capitalism engenders religiosity while socialism and communism somehow render religiosity superfluous. If anything, the example of Iran invalidates that initial observation by pointing out that religiosity can be prevalent in non-Capitalist societies. If you say so.... A link to the studies in question would be appreciated. http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cach...s&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us Ironically neither religious attendance or a belief in God are good indicators of how successful a free market is, but a strong belief in heaven, hell, and an after life are. thewatcher wrote: Whether or not this is a happy medium as far as religiosity goes is very much debatable. Why is being "spiritual" preferable to being the adherent of an organized religion? It is preferable if the people espousing such beliefs actually want to see their societies practice what they preach. The United States, for example, is by far the most religious of all countries in the developed world yet also retains the most abysmal social record as the article explains. For example, we have the highest homocide rates, STD rates, etc. and these can even be localized to those regions of the US that are the most fundamentalist. Unfortunately, as happens in so many social arenas, denial and ignorance of these problems and their strong correlation to religious practices is rampent. thewatcher wrote: What an obscene collection of generalizations. Religion is most assuredly a means of rendering our lives meaningful, as is science, as are a number of other worldviews and elements of worldviews. This does not mean they are not politically or socially important. Quite the contary. Surely religions are political.... but so too is everything else. Science is a highly political force and scientific notions and worldviews have profound and, at times, horrific impacts on the social and political conditions of our world. Heidegger's discussion of the the role of Machination (that is, scientific reductionism) on the Holocaust(/Shoah) is an excellent example of this sort of thing. Lets take anti-science: The Roman Catholic Church, the largest Christian denomination in both the US and the World at large, is hardly anti-science, being as it accepts (and in fact went a long way towards creating) evolutionary theory, physics, astronomy and so on. The Church patronizes the sciences through generous funding of hundreds of major and well respected universities world wide, as well as providing scholarships for countless scholars and endowments for a variety of programs and institutes of arts and sciences worldwide. The Vatican observatory has become a noted patron of astronomy and theoretical physics and routinely sponsors conferences and engages in productive dialogue with secular scientists, even going so far as to invite thinkers from such avowedly humanistic institutions as Oxford's Future of Humanity Institute. And, then, of course, there are the range of similar contributions made by protestant churches, Jewish and Muslim groups and so on. Likewise, a similar case can be made for the role religions play in promoting charity, equality and so on. A vastly disproportionate percentage of schools, hospitals, orphanages, charities, rehabilitation centers and so on are either of a religious affiliation or have their origins in some form of religious practice. Religion has been the driving force or rallying ground for a number of important socially progressive initiatives both in the US and in the world at large. The civil rights movement is an excellent example, as are the progressive movements that followed the industrial revolution. And all of this only scratches the surface of the positive contributions made by religion. Even science itself was only made possible by the intellectual, cultural, social and political resources of religious groups. Thus, while I appreciate your pragmatist approach to evaluating religion and science, I think that, if you take a more holistic view, you will find that religion is in fact more valuable, overall, than the scientific reductionist view that you seem to advocate. Religion had its hay day, but it is rapidly loosing ground in the developed world today. This is not merely my personal opinion nor is it some specious argument based on morality, history, or a few select examples. It is simply a fact of modern life that is rapidly gaining both increasing public awareness and empirical evidence. Compared to what governments, businesses, and individuals spend on charitable works religion is a mere drop in the bucket. If societies have a better understanding of the deliterious effects of religions, that much more money will be freed up for productive purposes. For example, despite the best efforts and overwhelming popularity of religious organizations across the US we now have the distinction of possessing the largest prison population on the planet bar none. Such social problems are untenable in the long run. They are economic and social disasters waiting to happen and, in the meantime, the public is learning more each day of how other successful democracies are doing a better job at not only coping better, but avoiding such problems in the first place without the need for religion. We can come to see reason slowly or painfully but reality has a way of catching up with people. Especially as their standards of living and education rise.

thewatcher
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 19, 2009

Total Topics: 13
Total Posts: 225

Posted 06/25/09 - 10:08 AM:	#16
wuliheron wrote: http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cach...s&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us Ironically neither religious attendance or a belief in God are good indicators of how successful a free market is, but a strong belief in heaven, hell, and an after life are. Thank you for the link. As for your observation, I must say I dont find it ironic at all. Simply an example of the reduction of religion to "a skill in trading" (pace Euthyphro). wuliheron wrote: It is preferable if the people espousing such beliefs actually want to see their societies practice what they preach. The United States, for example, is by far the most religious of all countries in the developed world yet also retains the most abysmal social record as the article explains. For example, we have the highest homocide rates, STD rates, etc. and these can even be localized to those regions of the US that are the most fundamentalist. Unfortunately, as happens in so many social arenas, denial and ignorance of these problems and their strong correlation to religious practices is rampent. Correlation does not imply causation. The fact that the US is religious or that religious areas are more afflicted by these problems than less religious areas (whatever that means) in no way indicates that religion is the cause of these social ills. It is possible that the reverse is the case. It is likewise possible that some third, unrecognized factor is at play in both religiosity and social ills. And so on and so forth. wuliheron wrote: Religion had its hay day, but it is rapidly loosing ground in the developed world today. This is not merely my personal opinion nor is it some specious argument based on morality, history, or a few select examples. It is simply a fact of modern life that is rapidly gaining both increasing public awareness and empirical evidence. Compared to what governments, businesses, and individuals spend on charitable works religion is a mere drop in the bucket. If societies have a better understanding of the deliterious effects of religions, that much more money will be freed up for productive purposes. It was never my intent to argue that religious practice is becoming less common. Rather, I am arguing that, given that, a disproportionate percentage of charitable organizations, hospitals, schools and so on are religious. What's more, you (unsurprisingly) fail to account for the fact that charitable contributions by governments, businesses and so on is often motivated by religious belief (church goers routinely give more to charities, even secular charities, than non-Church goers). You have failed to demonstrate any deliterious effects of religious belief on a population or, indeed, on individuals. I, on the other hand, have listed any number of social and institutional effects of religious belief. And that is not even to consider the intellectual and cultural debt that even secular european states owe to Christianity alone (to say nothing of Judaism and Islam) in the form of art, music, architecture, theater, common sayings, folklore, exemplars of human goodness and achievement and so on or the positive force religion plays in the life of countless individuals. Thus, we should be appropriately thankful that religion has not dissapeared and, indeed, shows no signs of doing so. The recent resurgance in religiousity, both in the public and large and in philosophy as an academic discipline seems to offer the hope of newer developments in religious thinking and practice. Surely, you are correct that metaphysical religious thought left much to be desired in some of its social effects, but this does not erase the massive potential of post-metaphysical religious thought to continue religions legacy of engendering positive change around the globe.

wuliheron
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 02, 2003
Location: Newport News, Va

Total Topics: 15
Total Posts: 4148

Posted 06/25/09 - 04:05 PM:	#17
thewatcher wrote: Correlation does not imply causation. The fact that the US is religious or that religious areas are more afflicted by these problems than less religious areas (whatever that means) in no way indicates that religion is the cause of these social ills. It is possible that the reverse is the case. It is likewise possible that some third, unrecognized factor is at play in both religiosity and social ills. And so on and so forth. Just as religion has yet to be causaly linked to many social problems, it has yet to be correlated with much less causally linked to their solution. If religion cannot be causaly related either for causing many social problems or solving them then it is time to move on to other solutions that have a proven track record. Apparently that is what is occuring today in the developing world. thewatcher wrote: It was never my intent to argue that religious practice is becoming less common. Rather, I am arguing that, given that, a disproportionate percentage of charitable organizations, hospitals, schools and so on are religious. What's more, you (unsurprisingly) fail to account for the fact that charitable contributions by governments, businesses and so on is often motivated by religious belief (church goers routinely give more to charities, even secular charities, than non-Church goers). Understandably, most nonbelievers support progressive politics as a means of giving to charities without the need for middlemen such as missionaries as intent on converting the heathens as they are on helping them in other ways. The secular thriving democracies in the world today are proof that such direct action can be enormously successful not only giving to worthwhile causes but, again, in solving many of these problems once and for all. thewatcher wrote: You have failed to demonstrate any deliterious effects of religious belief on a population or, indeed, on individuals. I, on the other hand, have listed any number of social and institutional effects of religious belief. And that is not even to consider the intellectual and cultural debt that even secular european states owe to Christianity alone (to say nothing of Judaism and Islam) in the form of art, music, architecture, theater, common sayings, folklore, exemplars of human goodness and achievement and so on or the positive force religion plays in the life of countless individuals. First you state that correlation does not equal causation for the problems associated with religion, then you imply that it does equal causation for the attempts of religions to improve society. Go figure. Like a growing number of people today I am more interested in empirical results than the outward appearance of organizations. On the large social scale about the only thing religion has a proven track record of actually affecting positively is the growth of emerging third world economies. This despite centuries of efforts by religious organizations to prove the sweeping effectiveness of their work. Since it is obvious that secular societies are thriving there is no reason to even consider supporting religious efforts to duplicate or expand upon their work. thewatcher wrote: Thus, we should be appropriately thankful that religion has not dissapeared and, indeed, shows no signs of doing so. The recent resurgance in religiousity, both in the public and large and in philosophy as an academic discipline seems to offer the hope of newer developments in religious thinking and practice. Surely, you are correct that metaphysical religious thought left much to be desired in some of its social effects, but this does not erase the massive potential of post-metaphysical religious thought to continue religions legacy of engendering positive change around the globe. Don't get me wrong, I am not anti-religion. I am pro science and flexibility. If religion is growing in the third world today I think that is wonderful in those situations where it actually has proven benefits that are not outweighed by its detriments. However, it is a mistake in my opinion to assume that religion is the answer to life, the universe, and everything despite so many of them preaching otherwise. You might as well start taking politicians at their word or believe everything they say on TV for all the good it will do you. In fact, I really enjoy discovering religions that stick to what they are good at and welcome outside scrutny of their results rather than promoting conservative agendas. For example, at 3 my daughter declared herself an agnostic and then promptly requested we take her to church. After a modest amount of research we took her to a local Unitarian Universalist church. Half the membership tends to be Christian, a hefty chunk of the remainder are atheists and agnostics, and Wicans tend to be the largest growing group in the Church. Instead of promising a single answer to life's problems they welcome all serious contenders and instead of usually preaching from the pulpit, they usually invite people involved in local charities to come describe their work and then pass the hat. My daughter enjoyed the church so much she joined the choir and learned all she could about the history of religion. She no longer attends church, but I am grateful it was there when she wanted learn more. Her experience is similar to what many people in the developed world experience today of religion. Instead of religion taking center stage in politics and, like many politicians, promising a chicken in every pot and the answers to all of life's problems it has found a bit of the modesty and humility that so many religions prize.

thewatcher
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 19, 2009

Total Topics: 13
Total Posts: 225

Posted 06/25/09 - 04:24 PM:	#18
wuliheron wrote: Just as religion has yet to be causaly linked to many social problems, it has yet to be correlated with much less causally linked to their solution. If religion cannot be causaly related either for causing many social problems or solving them then it is time to move on to other solutions that have a proven track record. Apparently that is what is occuring today in the developing world. I do not understand how you can make this claim in light of the myriad examples of benefits brought about by religious institutions (hospitals, charities, etc). wuliheron wrote: Understandably, most nonbelievers support progressive politics as a means of giving to charities without the need for middlemen such as missionaries as intent on converting the heathens as they are on helping them in other ways. The secular thriving democracies in the world today are proof that such direct action can be enormously successful not only giving to worthwhile causes but, again, in solving many of these problems once and for all. Again with the generalizations. Church-goers, statistically, give more to charities than non-church goers. For that matter, conservatives give more than liberals. And it is highly contestable as to whether government action is as succesful as you claim. In some cases, attempts at government solutions can create more problems than they solve. wuliheron wrote: First you state that correlation does not equal causation for the problems associated with religion, then you imply that it does equal causation for the attempts of religions to improve society. Go figure. I do no such thing. I have listed institutions and actions taken by religious groups to alleviate the harms you discuss. This demonstrates causation. You, however, merely show the coincidence of problems with the presence of religiosity: correlation, but no evidence of causation. wuliheron wrote: Like a growing number of people today I am more interested in empirical results than the outward appearance of organizations. On the large social scale about the only thing religion has a proven track record of actually affecting positively is the growth of emerging third world economies. This despite centuries of efforts by religious organizations to prove the sweeping effectiveness of their work. Since it is obvious that secular societies are thriving there is no reason to even consider supporting religious efforts to duplicate or expand upon their work. Once again, it is a question of correlation not implying causation. The fact that secular societies are doing better than religious ones in no way indicates that religion is what is dragging these socieities down. You have yet to prove otherwise or even provide your reasons for concluding otherwise. wuliheron wrote: Don't get me wrong, I am not anti-religion. I am pro science and flexibility. If religion is growing in the third world today I think that is wonderful in those situations where it actually has proven benefits that are not outweighed by its detriments. However, it is a mistake in my opinion to assume that religion is the answer to life, the universe, and everything despite so many of them preaching otherwise. You might as well start taking politicians at their word or believe everything they say on TV for all the good it will do you. In fact, I really enjoy discovering religions that stick to what they are good at and welcome outside scrutny of their results rather than promoting conservative agendas. Your problem is you have a very skewed view of religion. Religion need not be anti-science or anti-progressive. Even monolithic and ancient religions like Judaism and Roman Catholicism have proven to be champions of progressivism (in certain contexts) and of the sciences. Religion is a powerful force and a dangerous one, as even religious believers will admit. But, as Holderlin puts it "Where the danger lies, lies also the saving power."

aufbau87
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 08, 2008
Location: Southern California

Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 62

Posted 06/25/09 - 05:43 PM:	#19
Crackers wrote: Religion deals with why we exist. Science deals with what exists. Science is insufficient to replace religion. Science will aid in the destruction of religion but will not be it's replacement. A new philosophy, based on the needs of man, is needed to replace religion. This is false. Both religion AND science partake in ontology. Science is physicalistic, for the most part, and religion is at least immaterialistic. Science also tells us HOW we, as physical entities, came to be, by natural selection, e.g. Granted, though, religion provides an ulterior reason for existence. It says, e.g., we exist because God so loved us and wished to create us. Science may not be able to give this to us, but so much the worse for religious "explanations" (which I suspect you'd agree with).

wuliheron
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 02, 2003
Location: Newport News, Va

Total Topics: 15
Total Posts: 4148

Posted 06/25/09 - 09:57 PM:	#20
thewatcher wrote: I do not understand how you can make this claim in light of the myriad examples of benefits brought about by religious institutions (hospitals, charities, etc). As you so clearly pointed out, correlation is not causation. Are religions actually helping people overall, or are their charitable works merely bandaids that are applied to serious wounds that religions themselves inflict? For example, many religions today apply political pressure to fight some of the proven practices of family planning clinics such as informing people of the options for abortion, the use of condums, etc. It is therefore quite reasonable to assume that many of the STDs and abused children found amoung religious believers are caused by their religious beliefs. The question then arises as to whether the positive acts of religions outweight their negative ones. thewatcher wrote: Again with the generalizations. Church-goers, statistically, give more to charities than non-church goers. For that matter, conservatives give more than liberals. And it is highly contestable as to whether government action is as succesful as you claim. In some cases, attempts at government solutions can create more problems than they solve. You use generalizations to argue against my use of generalizations. Again, go figure. I made my case quite clearly. There is empirical evidence that religion is loosing its influence and followers among the worlds' thriving democracies. Despite their lack of religious dedication these democracies have lower homocide rates, lower abortion rates, lower rates of STDs, and cheaper and more effective healthcare systems than the most religious of the world's successful democracies, the USA. If that is too general for you, please explain how you would like me to be more specific. thewatcher wrote: Once again, it is a question of correlation not implying causation. The fact that secular societies are doing better than religious ones in no way indicates that religion is what is dragging these socieities down. You have yet to prove otherwise or even provide your reasons for concluding otherwise. It is not my place to prove the effectiveness of religions, anymore than it is my responsibility to prove that little green men landed in New Mexico in the 1950s. It is up to the religions to do so themselves. What I believe I have established is that despite the timeless efforts of religions to create a better society there is absolutely no evidence that they have managed to do so and quite of bit of evidence that the most successful societies in the world today (as measured by the standards of the religious themselves!) virtually dispense with religion altogether. thewatcher wrote: Your problem is you have a very skewed view of religion. Religion need not be anti-science or anti-progressive. Even monolithic and ancient religions like Judaism and Roman Catholicism have proven to be champions of progressivism (in certain contexts) and of the sciences. Religion is a powerful force and a dangerous one, as even religious believers will admit. But, as Holderlin puts it "Where the danger lies, lies also the saving power." Ok, so now the religious advocate resorts to personal attacks. My eyes have been openned to the healing power of religion and universal love!

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.