Will Religion Kill Science

PDN

rockbeer wrote:

And finally, re your self-acknowledged misinterpretation of the bible - if you can be wrong about some of its contents, is it not equally possible that you could be misinterpreting it in its entirety?

Yes, that is certainly possible. It is theoretically possible that we are all wrong and that the Scientologists really have got it right, but somehow I doubt it.

Tim Robbins

Scofflaw wrote:

Rather a breach of online privacy. I would take PDN at his word, myself.

cordially,
scofflaw

I believe him. I just wouldn't mind reading some of them.

Scofflaw

bonkey wrote:

I probably expressed myself badly.

Scientific observation allows us to discard inaccurate hypotheses. While I stop short of saying it give us the facts, I would say that modern science gives us the best odds in being right.

In this sense, it helps us to base our moral stances on fewer inaccurate assumptions.

Of course, this doesn't necessarily make the moral stance easier to make.

A case in point could be monogamy. Scientifically, we can see that there appear to be monogamous species, and that they are few and far between. We can observe that Homo Sapiens is not amongst these species. Does this mean that monogamy is not the moral choice? Not in the slightest. However, it should mean that we do not decide that monogamy is the moral choice because it is some "natural state" for man and woman (or indeed for any / all species) as the evidence says otherwise. We can say with reasonable authority that people who are not monogamous are not deficient in any physical sense. Its not an illness or a condition. Its a commonly observed trait.

The point I was trying to make is that scientific observation helps us discard invalid arguments on which morality may be based, rather than that it forms a basis for morality. This is based, of course, on the perhaps-faulty assumption that we choose to believe our morality should be grounded in reason in the first place, and not simply in nebulous "anyone can see..." reasoning.

That is a point of view with which I am entirely in agreement. Scientific facts can be used to inform moral debate, but science does not, and cannot dictate morality.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

Tim Robbins wrote:

I believe him. I just wouldn't mind reading some of them.

Hmm. I'd go with the Atheist's suggestion, then - he could add a couple of books to the 'suggested reading', including his own, with no reference to which one is which.

cordially,
Scofflaw

robindch

PDN wrote:

Good works are a consequence of, not a cause of, salvation.

Does that mean that you believe that it is not possible to do "good works" unless you accept, for the right reasons, the truth of the appropriate belief -- in this case, that you will be "saved" if and only if you believe that belief in Jesus will "save" you?

Zombrex

PDN wrote:

Christians believe that these aberrations are a direct consequence of man's choosing to sin. That is the doctrine of original sin - that a propensity towards that which is wrong and destructive is inherited from our first parents.

Well more specifically, they are a direct consequence of God's punishment due to Adam's decision to sin.

Again that doesn't explain why God would make gay animals (or even gay humans) as punishment

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

adam didn't decide to sin, his wife tricked him into it..

PDN

robindch wrote:

Does that mean that you believe that it is not possible to do "good works" unless you accept, for the right reasons, the truth of the appropriate belief -- in this case, that you will be "saved" if and only if you believe that belief in Jesus will "save" you?

No it does not mean that. What it means is that when a person places their faith in Christ there should be a considerable improvement in their moral behaviour.

PDN

Wicknight wrote:

Well more specifically, they are a direct consequence of God's punishment due to Adam's decision to sin.

Again that doesn't explain why God would make gay animals (or even gay humans) as punishment

I've never met anyone who thinks that God made gay animals as a punishment. That sounds like a very strange belief indeed. Homosexual behaviour among animals would not, in the eyes of any Christian I have ever met, be considered a moral issue at all.

Sapien

PDN wrote:

No it does not mean that. What it means is that when a person places their faith in Christ there should be a considerable improvement in their moral behaviour.

I'd say, PDN, that a statistical study which demonstrates that this is not the case will be linked to ere the break of dawn.

aidan24326

PDN wrote:

No it does not mean that. What it means is that when a person places their faith in Christ there should be a considerable improvement in their moral behaviour.

Total nonsense. This argumement is becoming painfully tedious. You're not a newcomer to this board so you have no excuse. It's been explained here umpteen times.

Incidentally, evangelical Christians would not argue that you are saved by overcoming aberrant behaviour. We believe that you are saved by faith in Jesus Christ, not by any works you may or may not do. Good works are a consequence of, not a cause of, salvation.

'Saved' from what? From who?

PDN

aidan24326 wrote:

Total nonsense. This argumement is becoming painfully tedious. You're not a newcomer to this board so you have no excuse. It's been explained here umpteen times.

Why do I need an excuse to answer people's questions? I agree it can be tedious to be asked the same kind of stuff over and over again, but I'm a patient person.

robindch

PDN wrote:

What it means is that when a person places their faith in Christ there should be a considerable improvement in their moral behaviour.

...which is roughly what I said -- that when a person believes they believe the appropriate belief, that "good works" result (me wrongly saying it's a necessary condition, you saying it's a contributory condition).

If we assume that the polls are right and 90% or so of the American or South African populations believe such a "good works"-related belief, and somewhere like Sweden which is around 60% atheist, does not, then why is it that crime in the USA and South Africa is so much higher than in Sweden?

Does that not suggest to you that the "should be" in your quote above should be replaced with a "is believed to, but unfortunately does not result in"?

BTW, that report that Sapien referred to is here.

rockbeer

PDN wrote:

...a propensity towards that which is wrong and destructive is inherited from our first parents

And just remind me again who made them?

robindch

robindch wrote:

If we assume that the polls are right and 90% or so of the American or South African populations believe such a "good works"-related belief, and somewhere like Sweden which is around 60% atheist, does not, then why is it that crime in the USA and South Africa is so much higher than in Sweden?

Does that not suggest to you that the "should be" in your quote above should be replaced with a "is believed to, but unfortunately does not result in"?

No true scotsman >.>

PDN

robindch wrote:

...which is roughly what I said -- that when a person believes they believe the appropriate belief, that "good works" result (me wrongly saying it's a necessary condition, you saying it's a contributory condition).

If we assume that the polls are right and 90% or so of the American or South African populations believe such a "good works"-related belief, and somewhere like Sweden which is around 60% atheist, does not, then why is it that crime in the USA and South Africa is so much higher than in Sweden?

Does that not suggest to you that the "should be" in your quote above should be replaced with a "is believed to, but unfortunately does not result in"?

BTW, that report that Sapien referred to is here.

Hmm, Robin you really are very transparent when you ask leading questions in an attempt to trap someone with such a blinding proof as this. :rolleyes:

I have carefully explained to you a few days ago, on the Christianity forum I believe, the difference between saving faith (putting your trust in Jesus, similar to allowing a tightrope walker to carry you) and simply having an intellectual faith in Christ. Not even the greatest nincompoop in Christendom would ever attempt to argue that 90% of the American population are committed Christians. So what I said is nowhere near your statement that when a person believes they believe the appropriate belief, that "good works" result. You are trying to alter my position (the data) to suit the conclusion you wished to draw. And there I was thinking you had some respect for the scientific method!

The report you link to shows that societies that manifest more religiosity do not have lower crime rates than other societies - such a finding is totally consistent with my beliefs and the position I outlined above. Since I hate religiosity (particularly the American and Irish versions) I have no difficulty in believing that the report is accurate.

Your argument here appears to take the following form:
1. Societies with religiosity manifest no less violence than non-religious societies.
2. PDN's form of Christianity is a type of religiosity.
3. Therefore commitment to PDN's religion does not produce any decrease of violence in its followers.

Now, assuming that you aren't just taking the piss and really think that is a valid argument, let's employ a little reductio ad absurdum. [Please note, before anyone produces a Tourette-like cry of "argument by analogy", that reductio ad absurdum is a perfectly proper tool in formal logic for demonstrating an argument to be invalid]

So, following Robin's train of thought:
1. Australia manifests a higher rate of skin cancer than Ireland.
2. A higher percentage of Australians than Irish say that wearing sunscreen on a daily basis is a sensible precaution.
3. Therefore wearing sunscreen on a daily basis actually increases the risk of contracting skin cancer.

Now, of course our absurd example falls down as an argument for several reasons:
a) Not everyone who says that wearing sunscreen is a sensible precaution actually wears the stuff.
b) Exposure to the sun is not the sole cause of skin cancer. Some skin cancer is totally unrelated to the sun or to sunscreen.
c) The environment in Australia is vastly different from that in Ireland. More specifically that means that the increased interest in sunscreen is a consequence of, not a cause, the high rates of skin cancer.

Robin's argument about religion and violence falls down for similar reasons.
a) Not everyone who claims to be religious is, in fact, a committed follower of Jesus Christ or possesses saving faith.
b) America has many cultural traits that Sweden lacks. For example, much more violence on TV.
c) It is entirely possible that increased religiosity in America is a response, or coping mechanism, to deal with the greater threat of violence that people face.

Of course we can add further details that skewer Robin's argument. For example, Sweden is actually more violent now than when the majority of the population professed to be Lutherans.

The fact is that when an individual becomes a committed Christian, with saving faith in Christ, then they become much less likely to engage in violence. For example, I personally know thousands of committed Christians and I do not know a single one of them that has, since their conversion, been guilty of any criminal acts of violence. Indeed, when someone claiming to be a committed Christian commits any act of criminal violence or wrongdoing it tends to be on the front page of the News of the World (Sunday School teacher convicted of mugging old lady!) However, I do know of many of them (myself included) who committed acts of criminal violence prior to conversion.

This fact is creating some real conflict in the US where evangelical prison ministries have been shown to dramatically decrease recidivism (from 20% to 8% according to a study from the University of Pennsylvania) yet such ministries obviously cross the dividing line of church and state.

PDN

Now I'm really worried! I have discovered that the percentage of Volvo owners is much lower in the US (with a high rate of religiosity) than it is in Sweden (low rate of religiosity).

Does this mean that I must accept the fact that, as a Christian, my faith will make it much harder for me ever to own that Volvo S80 I was planning to purchase?

:eek:

Zombrex

PDN wrote:

I've never met anyone who thinks that God made gay animals as a punishment.

Luckily for you then you have not met many Creationists

The argument is that all biological defects, faults or inefficiencies found in all biological life forms including humans are attributed to being a consequence of The Fall, because God in his infinite wisdom would have initially designed all life as a perfect systems (perfect intelligent design), and they clearly are not perfect systems (or even particularly well designed systems) today.

PDN wrote:

Homosexual behaviour among animals would not, in the eyes of any Christian I have ever met, be considered a moral issue at all.

That still leaves the question of why did God create animals that can be homosexual?

PDN wrote:

What it means is that when a person places their faith in Christ there should be a considerable improvement in their moral behaviour.

But I would imagine you would agree that if their isn't a considerable improvement in their moral behaviour that doesn't stop them being saved.

PDN wrote:

The fact is that when an individual becomes a committed Christian, with saving faith in Christ, then they become much less likely to engage in violence.

You are arguing from the position of a "No true Scotsman" since I would imagine that you would consider any individual who does engage in what you would consider unwarranted aggressive or violence actions to not be a "committed Christian", despite what they themselves believe.

Because you are doing this you are drawing the false conclusion that a conversion to a "committed Christian" will cause a person to be less violent or immoral. That is a false link since you are only considering those who are less violent and less immoral as being committed in the first place. You are ignoring those who consider themselves committed Christians and yet go through no such change.

You therefore cannot draw any conclusions about such a conversion as you are only selecting a desirable outcome of your initial assertion.

It would be like me saying "Anyone who reads and understands my posts will agree with everything I say"

If someone came along and said "Well I read and understood your posts and I don't agree with anything you are saying", then I could turn around and say "Well clearly you have not actually understood my posts and that is why you don't agree. If you did actually understand you would agree"

(TBH that sounds like many a conversation I've had in Christianity forum )

Dades

PDN wrote:

Does this mean that I must accept the fact that, as a Christian, my faith will make it much harder for me ever to own that Volvo S80 I was planning to purchase?

Well you obviously have to ask yourself - what would Jesus drive?

rockbeer

The Atheist wrote:

Well you obviously have to ask yourself - what would Jesus drive?

He drove a Honda - even if he was a bit embarrassed about it

"For I did not speak of my own Accord..." - John 12:49

Asiaprod

rockbeer wrote:

"For I did not speak of my own Accord..." - John 12:49

And for our US friends:
A plymouth "God drove Adam and Eve out in a Fury.

Scofflaw

PDN wrote:

Now I'm really worried! I have discovered that the percentage of Volvo owners is much lower in the US (with a high rate of religiosity) than it is in Sweden (low rate of religiosity).

Does this mean that I must accept the fact that, as a Christian, my faith will make it much harder for me ever to own that Volvo S80 I was planning to purchase?

:eek:

While I know you're taking the mick here, and you're quite correct about the difficulties of causation/correlation in the report - but, still, it can't be the Volvos, because that explanation holds only for one country.

Also, expanding on bluewolf's "no true Scotsman" point - your thesis that a "saving faith" will improve behaviour is simply not provable, because the only available measure we have is behaviour. You can claim, in the face of any evidence, that your thesis is true, discarding anyone whose behaviour has not changed (or has worsened) as "not having saving faith".

This will always be a problem, because no-one in this world can determine whether someone is truly saved.

What we can show is that a wide range of social indicators correlate with higher levels of "self-proclaimed Christianity". Since your Christianity, like anyone's, is not objectively falsifiable, this is the only possible measure we can use. I would also say that the range of social indicators (like STD rates) is too wide to be covered by your "reaction to violence" thesis.

cordially,
Scofflaw

PDN

Scofflaw wrote:

While I know you're taking the mick here, and you're quite correct about the difficulties of causation/correlation in the report - but, still, it can't be the Volvos, because that explanation holds only for one country.

Also, expanding on bluewolf's "no true Scotsman" point - your thesis that a "saving faith" will improve behaviour is simply not provable, because the only available measure we have is behaviour. You can claim, in the face of any evidence, that your thesis is true, discarding anyone whose behaviour has not changed (or has worsened) as "not having saving faith".

This will always be a problem, because no-one in this world can determine whether someone is truly saved.

What we can show is that a wide range of social indicators correlate with higher levels of "self-proclaimed Christianity". Since your Christianity, like anyone's, is not objectively falsifiable, this is the only possible measure we can use. I would also say that the range of social indicators (like STD rates) is too wide to be covered by your "reaction to violence" thesis.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Actually it would be quite easy to conduct statistical research to support or attack my position. Simply survey a sample of active members of evangelical churches and ascertain whether the percentage of them engaging in criminal or violent behaviour has increased or decreased since their professed conversion experience.

I think we both know what the results would be.

Zombrex

PDN wrote:

Actually it would be quite easy to conduct statistical research to support or attack my position. Simply survey a sample of active members of evangelical churches and ascertain whether the percentage of them engaging in criminal or violent behaviour has increased or decreased since their professed conversion experience.

I think we both know what the results would be.

First you have to define an "active member" Are you saying that a non-active member won't be saved or commune with Jesus?

That also works on the assumption that only members of an evangelical church can be saved in the first place.

Scofflaw

PDN wrote:

Actually it would be quite easy to conduct statistical research to support or attack my position. Simply survey a sample of active members of evangelical churches and ascertain whether the percentage of them engaging in criminal or violent behaviour has increased or decreased since their professed conversion experience.

I think we both know what the results would be.

Alas, they wouldn't prove your thesis. What a positive result would prove at best is that "being, or trying to be, an active member of an evangelical church" has a positive effect on behaviour. Alternatively, depending on the policies of the congregation, it would show that the church was very effective in rejecting/excluding those whose behaviour was unacceptable.

Further, I think we both know that you'd find the same effect for Catholic groups, or indeed any group that resembles an evangelical congregation.

None of which can ever prove that evangelical Christians' behaviour is improved by "saving faith", assuming that "saving faith" is faith in Christ sufficient to achieve salvation.

cordially,
Scofflaw

bonkey

Scofflaw wrote:

Alas, they wouldn't prove your thesis. What a positive result would prove at best is that "being, or trying to be, an active member of an evangelical church" has a positive effect on behaviour.

At best, as you say.

What would be a more likely "positive" result (if we assume a positive result) is that would could find a correlation between active membership and behavioural traits.

Causation is an entirely different kettle of fish.

robindch

PDN wrote:

The report you link to shows that societies that manifest more religiosity do not have lower crime rates than other societies - such a finding is totally consistent with my beliefs and the position I outlined above. [...]Not everyone who claims to be religious is, in fact, a committed follower of Jesus Christ or possesses saving faith. [...] The fact is that when an individual becomes a committed Christian, with saving faith in Christ, then they become much less likely to engage in violence.

So, do I understand you correctly that you are implying that levels of public religiosity are unrelated to levels of belief in what you believe to be the correct belief, which incidentally is also the belief held by people who perform more "good works"? And that therefore, the majority of people must therefore believe the wrong thing, despite their meta-conviction that they, like you, are believing the right thing?

This isn't leading questioning, I'm just trying to understand your point of view, particularly with respect to your belief concerning your beliefs and your beliefs concerning those of others.

PDN

Scofflaw wrote:

Alas, they wouldn't prove your thesis. What a positive result would prove at best is that "being, or trying to be, an active member of an evangelical church" has a positive effect on behaviour. Alternatively, depending on the policies of the congregation, it would show that the church was very effective in rejecting/excluding those whose behaviour was unacceptable.

Further, I think we both know that you'd find the same effect for Catholic groups, or indeed any group that resembles an evangelical congregation.

None of which can ever prove that evangelical Christians' behaviour is improved by "saving faith", assuming that "saving faith" is faith in Christ sufficient to achieve salvation.

cordially,
Scofflaw

I agree that it would not 'prove' my thesis (but it would lend support to it). However, remember that I did not raise this issue, nor have I tried to 'prove' anything. I have simply answered questions as honestly and openly as possible and have taken the time to expose a rather silly little trap that was intended to attack my beliefs but which was irrelevant to both my beliefs and to this thread.

PDN

robindch wrote:

So, do I understand you correctly that you are implying that levels of public religiosity are unrelated to levels of belief in what you believe to be the correct belief, which incidentally is also the kind of belief that is found in people who perform more "good works"? And that therefore, the majority of people must therefore believe the wrong thing, despite their meta-conviction that they, like you, are believing the right thing?

This isn't leading questioning, I'm just trying to understand your point of view, particularly with respect to your belief concerning your beliefs and your beliefs concerning those of others.

Levels of religiosity would be extremely high in Iran, or Saudi Arabia, but that would actually reduce the number of people who hold to what I see as the correct belief.

I am not saying that people who hold my belief necessarily perform "more good works" than people of other beliefs. My belief is actually much more attractive to people who are aware of their own moral need (Jesus said that the sick are more aware of their need for a physician). Therefore adherents to evangelical Christianity frequently start from a very low moral base. My argument is that adherents of this form of Christianity should perform more good works than they performed before their conversion. So, a year after my conversion to Christ I was living a much more moral life than 12 months earlier - but I will freely admit that you would have had no difficulty in finding Buddhists or atheists who outperformed me in the realm of good works. Is that clearer?

As for the majority believing the wrong thing ... I believe we were talking about the United States of American at the time? It is self-evident that most Americans believe the wrong thing, otherwise patriotism would not exist in such a messed up country.

rockbeer

PDN wrote:

My argument is that adherents of this form of Christianity should perform more good works than they performed before their conversion.

One interesting question that suggests itself is whether converts to evangelical christianity perform relatively more or fewer good works than converts to other faiths, or indeed people who find non-religious ways to improve themselves from a "very low moral base".

Would the results of such a study have any bearing on how you perceive the value of your faith if, say, it was scientifically demonstrated that other belief systems were more effective in inspiring people to live good lives than evangelical christianity?