God and social dysfunction

[shunyadragon]

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

Scientific prepositions are not believed, because scientists say so. likewise, it is not believed that the astronauts went to the moon because they say so.

[Outis]

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?

If a pig sprouts wings and flies, is it still a pig?

Not only does this statement have nothing whatsoever to do with your opening post, you still have not provided any data or evidence that makes the noted correlation anything more than an interesting coincidence. No cause. No evidence that there are no other factors affecting the correlation. Nothing but correlation and baseless claim.

If this is all you've got, I'd say (even as a non-theist) you don't have much.

[Paprika]

Scientific prepositions are not believed, because scientists say so. likewise, it is not believed that the astronauts went to the moon because they say so.

Then how is the average layman to know if say evolution is true? Or Heisenberg's uncertainty theorem? Or the content of an C-13 atom?

[shunyadragon]

I agree, if the particular rejection is in fact irrational.

But that is pretty much what is the issue - is it always irrational for someone to reject a particular scientific theory or a current scientific belief? I suggest that it is not necessarily irrational at all - in fact, that science doesn't develop unless people are willing to reject the current paradigm on all sorts of matters.

Coyne seems to want to privilege his pet ideas from serious examination - people who don't accept them are automatically 'irrational'.

It is, of course, not 'automatically irrational.' Over simplification here without addressing the issue. Current scientific theories are not based on 'scientific belief,' and scientific knowledge is intimately interrelated with the scientific methodology of falsification, and NOT applied to one specific theory, hypothesis or another independently. Change in knowledge is accepted as part of science. The problem is the selective rejection of science based on a presumption of absolute truth of one of the many possible religious belief systems. Those that reject science, and 'cherry pick' what they want to believe or not believe in this way are either extremely dishonest or socially dysfunctional unable to comprehend reality.

Scientists believe in rigorous peer review, challenging existing theories and hypothesis, and willing to reject past paradigms based on sound research, new discoveries, and results based on sound scientific methods of falsification.

[Soyeong]

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.

The truth of Evolution is not mathematical, but is something that is open to interpretation. People are not lying simply because they interpret evidence differently from you.

That is the same relationship expressed religiously.

Right, so this is akin to noting that there is a correlation between people who have colds and people who take cold medicine and concluding that cold medicine causes colds. You need to show that Christianity is the cause of social dysfunction rather than the cure.

That doesn't mean we are the government or that the government's role is provide social welfare.

The cause is your limitless imagination.

Give me just one example of someone forming a belief purely because they imagined it to be true, where nothing indicated to them that it was true, and where they thought they had no grounds to believe it to be true.

[Outis]

The truth of Evolution is not mathematical, but is something that is open to interpretation. People are not lying simply because they interpret evidence differently from you.

One cannot generically accuse people of lying, no--but many who promote alternative "interpretation" most certainly do lie, and have been repeatedly caught at it.

You have a current SC state senator who wants to "Teach the controversy" on evolution. Evidently Sen. Fair either has no familiarity with the results of Kitzmiller v. Dover, or he is (there is no other word for it but dishonestly) continuing the propaganda that evolution is somehow a controversial theory.

I do also need to point out that creationism and ID are not "different interpretations of the evidence." They are flat-out rejections of the evidence.

[firstfloor]

Not only does this statement have nothing whatsoever to do with your opening post, ...........

you still have not provided any data or evidence that makes the noted correlation anything more than an interesting coincidence. No cause. No evidence that there are no other factors affecting the correlation. Nothing but correlation and baseless claim.

[Outis]

Your OP, by suggesting that the correlation is causative, has already "passed judgment." While you may seek to avoid having to back your claims, you have already made them.

[Soyeong]

One cannot generically accuse people of lying, no--but many who promote alternative "interpretation" most certainly do lie, and have been repeatedly caught at it.

You have a current SC state senator who wants to "Teach the controversy" on evolution. Evidently Sen. Fair either has no familiarity with the results of Kitzmiller v. Dover, or he is (there is no other word for it but dishonestly) continuing the propaganda that evolution is somehow a controversial theory.

Of course there are people who have promoted Creationism who have lied, but that's a far different claim than that only reason that Evolution remains controversial is because creationists lie about it. There also a number of instances where Evolutionists have lied to promote their interpretation.

I do also need to point out that creationism and ID are not "different interpretations of the evidence." They are flat-out rejections of the evidence.

For instance, the lost squadron had more layers of ice on top of it than the number of years that they were buried. We have the same evidence, but Creationists interpret this as being because of heating and cooling patterns rather than yearly cycles, so calculations done on other ice cores end up with inflated results if there is a wrong assumption for how long it takes a layer to form.

[shunyadragon]

Right, so this is akin to noting that there is a correlation between people who have colds and people who take cold medicine and concluding that cold medicine causes colds. You need to show that Christianity is the cause of social dysfunction rather than the cure.

I believe that statistical results, and testimonies of those that actually do reject evolution represent clear correlation to social dysfunction of selectively rejecting science. Approximately 45 to 55% of adults reject evolution based on religious grounds. They are either Christians, Muslims, or Hindus (Hare Krishna). There is no offer of a cure from any of these worldviews.

Give me just one example of someone forming a belief purely because they imagined it to be true, where nothing indicated to them that it was true, and where they thought they had no grounds to believe it to be true.

This is a bit of an unreasonable request, since virtually all those who reject evolution do so based on the grounds that their religious beliefs are true regardless of the evidence.

[firstfloor]

The truth of Evolution is not mathematical, but is something that is open to interpretation. People are not lying simply because they interpret evidence differently from you.

Creationists deliberately misrepresent the scientific case to their own audience. It is not about interpretation.

You need to show that Christianity is the cause of social dysfunction rather than the cure.

The claim is made about religiosity, not particularly Christianity.

Give me just one example of someone forming a belief purely because they imagined it to be true, where nothing indicated to them that it was true, and where they thought they had no grounds to believe it to be true.

[Outis]

Of course there are people who have promoted Creationism who have lied, but that's a far different claim than that only reason that Evolution remains controversial is because creationists lie about it.

Both statements are true, however. Evolution is only "controversial" in as much as some people lie about it. The facts of evolution are incontrovertible without resorting to dishonesty. The current theory of evolution has controversies regarding specific (and relatively minute) details, but there are no controversies regarding the theory as a whole.

There also a number of instances where Evolutionists have lied to promote their interpretation.

I would challenge you to find one that was not exposed by other scientists. Not creationists, scientists.

Further, I would challenge you to fine one example of a scientist who has lied to promote the theory as a whole, as opposed to a particular detail they wish to present or take credit for.

For instance, the lost squadron had more layers of ice on top of it than the number of years that they were buried.

I would encourage you to start a thread in the Natural Science sub-forum to explore this claim.

[Soyeong]

The claim is made about religiosity, not particularly Christianity.

I'm fine with the idea that religiosity can meet some of the needs of people, so you still need to show that it is the cause of social dysfunction rather than something that is seeking to fix it.

It is necessary to have evidence before you can misinterpret it. Saying that in your opinion people who are followers of supernatural philosophies have misinterpreted evidence is a very different from claiming that that they have no evidence.

[firstfloor]

Your OP, by suggesting that the correlation is causative, has already "passed judgment." While you may seek to avoid having to back your claims, you have already made them.

I was simply opening for discussion the work of Gregory S. Paul. The data you want is available at his website. http://www.gspaulscienceofreligion.com/

[seanD]

Progress in national wealth improves quality of life and development. The two are directly related. But my point was that there are many potential nuances that can get lost outside of the data.