God and social dysfunction

[Paprika]

I do consider the irrational rejection of science to be at least 'social dysfunction' if not the underlying symptom of a mental illness characterized by inability to relate rationally to reality.

Are you saying that accepting scientific prepositions because "scientists say so" is necessarily rational?

[Soyeong]

I do consider the irrational rejection of science to be at least 'social dysfunction' if not the underlying symptom of a mental illness characterized by inability to relate rationally to reality.

If they had no reason for rejecting science, then it would be irrational. However, they give arguments for their position, so it is rational.

[Outis]

If they had no reason for rejecting science, then it would be irrational. However, they give arguments for their position, so it is rational.

Arguments can be irrational. I don't believe all of the anti-science arguments given are irrational, but some of them are.

[seasanctuary]

I do consider the irrational rejection of science to be at least 'social dysfunction' if not the underlying symptom of a mental illness characterized by inability to relate rationally to reality.

Rejection of science can be rational for an individual in an environment where the nature of science is distorted. It's a societal problem, not (usually) a personal dysfunction relating to society. If science were appropriately understood and respected throughout society, then one-off exceptions might very well suggest mental illness...but not with the way things are now.

[Soyeong]

Arguments can be irrational. I don't believe all of the anti-science arguments given are irrational, but some of them are.

Being rational is having the ability to use reason and being irrational is not having that ability, so someone who is irrational wouldn't even be able to form an argument. I realize that people sometimes say that someone who makes a mistake in their reasoning is being irrational, but I think that is misapplied because they need to have the ability to use reason before they can make a mistake in their reasoning.

Note that people who are against Evolution generally are not anti-science, but are against a particular interpretation of scientific data. Still, if someone can make a mistake in their reasoning against evolution, but you think they are not being irrational, then where do you draw the line between that and that and being irrational? I think it has more to do with your opinion on how strong or weak their argument is than with their use of reason to arrive at their conclusion.

[Outis]

Being rational is having the ability to use reason and being irrational is not having that ability, so someone who is irrational wouldn't even be able to form an argument. I realize that people sometimes say that someone who makes a mistake in their reasoning is being irrational, but I think that is misapplied because they need to have the ability to use reason before they can make a mistake in their reasoning.

Note that people who are against Evolution generally are not anti-science, but are against a particular interpretation of scientific data. Still, if someone can make a mistake in their reasoning against evolution, but you think they are not being irrational, then where do you draw the line between that and that and being irrational? I think it has more to do with your opinion on how strong or weak their argument is than with their use of reason to arrive at their conclusion.

An interesting viewpoint. I will consider your words.

[seanD]

Or is the correlation simply a coincidence? That's my hypothesis.

Or are they misinterpreting the data or disregarding other data?

[Outis]

Or are they misinterpreting the data or disregarding other data?

That expands the question beyond the scope of my hypothesis, but is a reasonable expansion, and would be a good way to test my hypothesis.

[seanD]

Btw, like I said before, economically, a lot of the countries that have been heralded here as beacons of nonreligious progress are on the brink economic disarray. But I wouldn't readily attribute that to any type of social or cultural belief. For example, just because the European Commission found that the entire EU is corrupt to the core economically or that Japan has been in a recession for more than a decade, I wouldn't readily blame atheism as this might have more to do with a small minority of wealthy oligarchs and decision makers and little to do with the actual populace itself.

[Doug Shaver]

You say so. People who believe in the supernatural beg to differ.

They do and they make noises to indicate their difference but there is no substance to it

Maybe. Or maybe it depends on how you're defining "evidence." Could you explain what that word means to you?

[firstfloor]

Tell me FF, do you agree that you are an atheist because of a bad relationship with your father? After all, a psychologist wrote a book on it, so it must be true, correct?

Nice one LPOT, that deserves extra points for originality. I shall see what Dr. Vitz has to say for himself and report back.

[Tassman]

Btw, like I said before, economically, a lot of the countries that have been heralded here as beacons of nonreligious progress are on the brink economic disarray. But I wouldn't readily attribute that to any type of social or cultural belief. For example, just because the European Commission found that the entire EU is corrupt to the core economically or that Japan has been in a recession for more than a decade, I wouldn't readily blame atheism as this might have more to do with a small minority of wealthy oligarchs and decision makers and little to do with the actual populace itself.

[firstfloor]

Tell me FF, do you agree that you are an atheist because of a bad relationship with your father? After all, a psychologist wrote a book on it, so it must be true, correct?

[firstfloor]

Everyone tends to reject things contrary to their worldviews. There is no need for people accept Evolution in order to be a healthy society.

You might as well say that 2 + 2 = whatever suits your particular worldview. The only reason that Evolution remains controversial is because creationists lie about it.

We owe everything we have to God and when we are successful, it becomes easier to forget God and to try to take credit ourselves. Conversely, when we are on hard times, then it becomes easier to see our need for God, so it is only natural for there to be a correlation.

That is the same relationship expressed religiously.

You say the solution is in our own hands, but then you look to the government to do it for you? That's you're problem right there.

If there were no evidence for supernatural philosophies, then there wouldn't be anyone who formed the belief that they were true. You're essentially saying that belief in the supernatural is uncaused because whatever the cause is, it would be evidence for that belief.

The cause is your limitless imagination.

[firstfloor]

If all the science books in the world were destroyed and all memory of them expunged, it would still be possible in a few hundred years to recreate everything we currently know about nature. What would be the result if all the Holy Scriptures were similarly lost? Would Christianity re-emerge?