Michael Nugent speaks for Atheism

antiskeptic

Michael Nugent wrote: »

First let’s remember what the dilemma is: it is about defining the fundamental characteristic of moral goodness. The argument that something is good because it pleases a god creates the following dilemma:

You first argued that good is a label for “that which aligns with god’s will”, that his will stems from his character, and that his character is immutable.

Correct

I replied that all that this does is push the dilemma onto his immutable characteristics rather than onto his will, and I asked if there is any reason, or no reason, that your god happens to have the immutable characteristics that your god happens to have?

You replied that there is no reason required for God’s characteristics to be as they happen to be, that he might have had characteristics causing him to love selfishness but as it happens he doesn’t, and that he wants us to align ourselves with his will because it is the only way that he is able to share our company.

Correct

Well, if we apply that to the Euthyphro dilemma, then goodness is arbitrary, as it is based merely on the characteristics that your god happens to have, and these are characteristics for which there is no reason required and over which he has no control.

Correct. As stated previously, the sense of arbitrary applicable isn't the sense which says what's good today could be bad tomorrow. That would indeed cause a dilemma.

I asked what the dilemma was with an arbitrary goodness which was fixed and immutable.

Also, the only reason to do good is to facilitate the desire of this god to be able to share our company.

I thought I did mention another reason? That it facilitates our expressing our hearts desire wrt God.


Why do good? Because I feel I ought.

Why do you feel you ought? Because God installed a sense of ought as part of a mechanism related to finding him (and post-having found him, to enable growth in the relationship). I'm subject to it's pressure "I ought, I ought not"

It's not an arbitrary, pulled-out-of-a-hat-on-a-whim kind of thing: when I do as I ought I am, in fact, expressing myself according to the image of the God after whom I was made. And when I am not, I am not. These responses feed into an algorithm (of sorts*) which ensures my hearts desire will obtain the option offered it.

Why did God go to this trouble on my behalf? So that I could enjoy God and he me, forever.

Why does God want that? Because God is love and the immutable nature of love is to desire to express itself to a beloved.

Why do you want that? I'm made in the image of God and so part of me is love too and the immutable nature of love... The other bit of me which isn't made in the image of God wants the opposite. I get to choose which it will be for all eternity.


-


Where's the dilemma in 'good' existing within a closed system and for an immutable reason?

recedite

antiskeptic wrote: »

I asked what the dilemma was with an arbitrary goodness which was fixed and immutable....Where's the dilemma in 'good' existing within a closed system and for an immutable reason?

If goodness was found to arbitrary, the philosophers of morality and ethics would consider that to be an unsatisfactory outcome. A dilemma can be defined as a choice between two unsatisfactory outcomes.

The reason it would be unsatisfactory is that "goodness" would be reduced to "correctness", as in trying to achieve a facsimile of the god's nature or his instructions. Goodness would have no intrinsic value of its own.

So we would be just like the Nazi concentration camp guards, following correct procedure at all times; there would be no separate consideration about whether the correct procedures were just.

You have already referred to your willingness to participate in a "righteous slaughter" provided the orders come from the correct/good/god source, but I have to point out, this is unsatisfactory to a normal sentient being having some empathy for others.

antiskeptic

recedite wrote: »

The reason it would be unsatisfactory is that "goodness" would be reduced to "correctness", as in trying to achieve a facsimile of the god's nature or his instructions. Goodness would have no intrinsic value of its own.

So we would be just like the Nazi concentration camp guards, following correct procedure at all times; there would be no separate consideration about whether the correct procedures were just.

This merely kicks the can up the road.

Like goodness, 'value' and 'satisfactory' and 'just' can be examined under the Euthyphro Dilemma setup. Is it valuable/satisfactory/just because God says so (in which case arbitrary). Or is it that God too must bow to a higher authority where 'good' is what's intrinsically good (where intrinsically excludes any reference to or connection with God).

My response here would be the same as it was for "good". And since that response appears to sidestep the Euthyphro Dilemma, so to would my response to "just/value/etc.


The only dilemma that I can see is one for the man who finds himself in a closed system the boundary of which is God. And in finding himself there he finds he is subject to God's plan for him - which kicks into touch whatever intellectual mastur...means a man might generate in the attempt to rid himself of God.

That would appear to include the Euthyphro Dilemma (so called)

marty1985

Even if you believe that there is a god, why, other than by accident of birth, should you choose this particular version of god out of the many that have been invented?

If we were born in China, there would be a high probability we would all be atheist. Is this not the Genetic Fallacy? An idea shouldn't be discredited based on its origin and not on the merits of the idea itself. It is implying, it appears to me, that the belief is questionable or that a believer's intellectual rigour or honesty should be called into question because they hold to the traditional belief of the area? I think this is one argument that should be met with a shrug of indifference. If his belief is false, then your belief can also be false. Your belief is no more credible because it is going against the grain in a given area. What do we do then with all the young Chinese guys embracing Christianity? It just seems to me that this geography thing is a moot point. If the idea makes sense to him and he believes it and thinks it has merit, well then... Anyway, gods die when they stop being worshipped. Maybe he can take that as evidence those gods were false, I dunno.

antiskeptic

marty1985 wrote: »

If we were born in China, there would be a high probability we would all be atheist.

Or, as my own post suggests: if we were born in Ireland, there would be a high probability we would all be atheist (where cultural Christianity is seen as no different to atheism in God's economy)

Dades

marty1985 wrote: »

If we were born in China, there would be a high probability we would all be atheist. Is this not the Genetic Fallacy? An idea shouldn't be discredited based on its origin and not on the merits of the idea itself. It is implying, it appears to me, that the belief is questionable or that a believer's intellectual rigour or honesty should be called into question because they hold to the traditional belief of the area? I think this is one argument that should be met with a shrug of indifference. If his belief is false, then your belief can also be false. Your belief is no more credible because it is going against the grain in a given area. What do we do then with all the young Chinese guys embracing Christianity? It just seems to me that this geography thing is a moot point. If the idea makes sense to him and he believes it and thinks it has merit, well then... Anyway, gods die when they stop being worshipped. Maybe he can take that as evidence those gods were false, I dunno.

I think the point is that as most people hold to the religion of their community, it shows how much religion is a cultural thing rather than a conscious thing. So when people say "look at all the Christians!", what they are really saying is "look at all the people raised in Christian communities". If people believed in their religion simply by virtue of the evidence for it, there would be an even spread of religion throughout the (connected) world.

There's a reason the churches don't want to let go of schools - they know that if they don't get them young - they unlikely ever will.

On your point re Chinese guys embracing Christianity - there are more telling statistics showing the percentage of theists who become non-theists (or change religions) - vice versa. In terms of volume it's virtually one way toward non-belief.*

* There was an image denoting graphically the volume of conversions from one religion to another posted here before - anyone remember where?

The Mad Hatter

Dades wrote: »

* There was an image denoting graphically the volume of conversions from one religion to another posted here before - anyone remember where?

Nope, but a few Google searches have brought me lots of cartoons. To the Funny Side thread!

Edit: Wait, I found it!



Second edit - the above is from the UK. This one's from the US:

ghostchant

The second figure is interesting. It would appear to show a system that hasn't reached equilibrium yet. It shows about 50% of non-believers switching, but the whole group growing. If the percentage of people leaving each group is maintained over time (no reason for that to be the case of course), you'd expect a turnover of the growth of atheist vs theist at some point in the future (and a further turnover later). Actually if you left that long enough then everyone would be in the blue group eventually, since there's effectively no-one leaving the group. (or is there something missing from the picture? The width of the blue group's label is larger than the width of the blue -> blue movement, with no other movement from blue. That's different to all the other groups)

The Mad Hatter

ghostchant wrote: »

The second figure is interesting. It would appear to show a system that hasn't reached equilibrium yet. It shows about 50% of non-believers switching, but the whole group growing. If the percentage of people leaving each group is maintained over time (no reason for that to be the case of course), you'd expect a turnover of the growth of atheist vs theist at some point in the future (and a further turnover later). Actually if you left that long enough then everyone would be in the blue group eventually, since there's effectively no-one leaving the group.

Being colour-blind I'm compelled to ask - is that "Other" or "Black Protestant"? If the latter, then there's sort of a theoretical maximum...

ghostchant

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

Being colour-blind I'm compelled to ask - is that "Other" or "Black Protestant"? If the latter, then there's sort of a theoretical maximum...

Black Protestant, apologies I get what you're saying, and I'm simply going on what the figure is implying. Then again that theoretical maximum isn't constant, and if you wait long enough the definitions of black and white will become blurred enough for the distinction to possibly be unimportant.

The Mad Hatter

ghostchant wrote: »

Black Protestant, apologies

In that case, for many Americans it would involve more than just a religious conversion :P

ghostchant

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

In that case, for many Americans it would involve more than just a religious conversion :P

Sorry edited the point I was trying to make into the above post. Genetic conversions over generations happens quicker than religious ones possibly

gizmo555

Dades wrote: »

There's a reason the churches don't want to let go of schools - they know that if they don't get them young - they unlikely ever will.

Who says they don't want to?

THE DOMINANCE of the Catholic Church in the patronage of the State’s primary schools is “a remnant of the past and no longer tenable today”, Archbishop of Dublin Diarmuid Martin has said.

The Government had been “very slow in providing a plurality of patronage models”, Dr Martin added, calling for a national forum to debate such plurality.

In a lengthy address to the Cambridge Group for Irish Studies at Magdalene College yesterday, he said: “I am the patron of about 93 per cent of all primary schools in the archdiocese of Dublin, while Catholics compose only about 85 per cent of the population.”

Such “a massive presence of the Catholic Church in the management of schools is, however, patently a remnant of the past and no longer tenable today”.

It was “obvious that there is a desire for change in the management structure of Irish schools. It is recognised that the Irish Government has an obligation to ensure that parents who do not want a religious ethos in the formation of their children can, as far as possible, exercise their rights.”

dmw07

gizmo555 wrote: »

Who says they don't want to?

I read the article and this is how my brain interpreted it.

We are losing power, the game is up lads.
The government suck more than us though, so we're not that bad.
Young people just won't listen to us anymore.
The government won't listen to us anymore.
People are not proud to say they are catholic anymore so we can't attach ourselves to the famous. Boo hoo.
We should have more power and young people should listen to us!
I'm trying to change all this.
We need a new trick.


Very honest opinion from Mr. Martin though. An almost realistic view on things.

Dades

gizmo555 wrote: »

Who says they don't want to?

THE DOMINANCE of the Catholic Church in the patronage of the State’s primary schools is “a remnant of the past and no longer tenable today”, Archbishop of Dublin Diarmuid Martin has said.

Nothing in those comments indicates to me the "church" wants to relinquish control - only that an honest senior figure realises it has too.

Doctor DooM

In a lengthy address to the Cambridge Group for Irish Studies at Magdalene College yesterday, he said: “I am the patron of about 93 per cent of all primary schools in the archdiocese of Dublin, while Catholics compose only about 85 per cent of the population.”

In Dublin there were parishes “where the presence at Sunday Mass is some 5 per cent of the Catholic population and, in some cases, even below 2 per cent”.

Not to drag up an old argument, but I think we can now safely say the Irish Catholic Church does not get its membership figures from a mass census or anything of the like, as I'd say 2 or three dioceseseseses with those figures in Dublin would make it impossible for the overall total to be 85%, especially when you include the amount of people who aren't Catholic for any other reason.

marty1985

Dades wrote: »

I think the point is that as most people hold to the religion of their community, it shows how much religion is a cultural thing rather than a conscious thing. So when people say "look at all the Christians!", what they are really saying is "look at all the people raised in Christian communities". If people believed in their religion simply by virtue of the evidence for it, there would be an even spread of religion throughout the (connected) world.

Of course, what else would anyone expect? Religion was always not primarily something people thought, but something they did. Its truth was acquired by practical action, so of course people inherit it from their culture. Religion is a practical discipline that combined mythos and logos. Now we live in a society dominated by scientific logos and myth has fallen into disrepute, but it once had a strong value, as if a primitive form of psychology. But that's gone now, and we have literalism, a literalism unparalelled in the history of religion, which in turn leads to a rise in atheism - two modern phenomena. As in China, religion has always been seen as a "knack", something you did, acquired through constant practice. Zhuangzi explained that it was no good trying to analyse religious teachings logically. Nor did the Buddha waste time answering theological questions. If I ask a Daoist monk what evidence he has for there being a transcendant dimension of life, he would look pretty confused. It's frustrating for a modern Western person, so I sympathise with your irritation.

And of course, modern Western people have a tendency to push their way of thinking forward as if its the only acceptable one, like a juggernaut.

There's a reason the churches don't want to let go of schools - they know that if they don't get them young - they unlikely ever will.

I don't really have a view on this, but I don't buy into any big manipulative conspiracy. I think the church would be happy to relinquish control of the schools, which they should, and I think most people agree. The Late Late Show debacle seemed to me to be merely people rolling their eyes at the atheists expressing horror that Catholic schools teach children Jesus is God, and talking about gods "small g" and the supernatural. For the majority of that audience, I'd imagine religion was something they do, and it's natural for children to follow their example. Which is why Atheist Ireland's arguments, going on about evidence, or the indignant furious retorts of "I'm sure all of those audience members don't use condoms!" go straight over their heads, and rightly so. I think it should happen soon and we should be happy to be in a situation where it can happen, while acknowledging that without the church, putting their crimes to one side, a lot of our forefathers would have gone unschooled, not to mention unnursed, unconsoled and unburied, in the words of Terry Eagleton.

On your point re Chinese guys embracing Christianity - there are more telling statistics showing the percentage of theists who become non-theists (or change religions) - vice versa. In terms of volume it's virtually one way toward non-belief.*

I'm not sure what this refers to, or how it's more telling. The world's major religions are involved in a scramble for China, soon China will be the world's biggest Christian nation, as well as the world's biggest Muslim nation. For you, religion might be an oppressor. For others, it is a liberator, associated with insurrection. Mao Zedong put religion second only to capitalism on his list of evils. Now, there are more Christians than members of the Communist Party - at a conservative guess. Whatever the numbers surveyed, the realistic amount of Christians is going to be a lot higher. Atheism is fashionable here. Christianity is fashionable there.

Statistics showing the percentage of theists who become non-theists perhaps apply to secular Europe? Even then, you have some problems with demography. We're not having enough babies. Our global domination and stratospheric living standards give us an unfounded confidence in the rightness of our attitudes but have also deluded us into an over-haughty rejection of the wisdom of the societies that went before us. We've taken our eye off the ball. We're committing demographic suicide in most places. The only two realistic possibilities are an unimaginable increase in birth rates or a vast increase in immigration, which is coming in the form of religious communities. Higher birthrates of religious communities have been empirically verified globally. To prevent long term demographic decline (which results in tax burdens etc) we actually need non-assimilating migrants. That's why I don't think these statistics might not have a real impact in the long run, if we are not replacing ourselves while religious communities are multiplying.

I agree that religion is a cultural thing. It will become a cultural thing in the most populated country on Earth too. And I imagine there will be a revival of religious cultures in secular Europe based on demographic predictions. It's not religion that is the problem. It's religion + power. Religion flourishes best when it operates in a world of free choice, and we should respect others choices. I think we should learn to live with it.

We might tend to look at other cultures, particularly religious ones, with a sense of embarrassment at their backwardness, but it's worth noting that our own culture is the one failing the first and most vital test of any human culture: it cannot reproduce itself into the future. That's why we need cultures that can.

Dades

I was with you down to here...

marty1985 wrote: »

We might tend to look at other cultures, particularly religious ones, with a sense of embarrassment at their backwardness, but it's worth noting that our own culture is the one failing the first and most vital test of any human culture: it cannot reproduce itself into the future. That's why we need cultures that can.

Our own culture is slowly pushing Catholicism into the back pews. There's virtually no priests being ordained anymore. The church will always be there, but it's influence will wane over time.

I would consider the immigration of religious communities with a penchant for having more children than then rest of us as a speed-bump in the slow decline of religion here. I don't see any of those new religious cultures as likely to go viral amongst the "indigenous" ex-catholic population. We are more likely to end up like Britain with distinct cultures but high levels of secularism.

But again, call it culture or call it an accident, what almost always determines what religion you are is not the evidence for that religion but where, and to whom, on earth you happened to be born. I think that was Michael's original point. Even if you happen to be Chinese, whether as an atheist or victim of part of the soul-grab that is going on all over the Second/Third World.

antiskeptic

Marty wrote:

We might tend to look at other cultures, particularly religious ones, with a sense of embarrassment at their backwardness, but it's worth noting that our own culture is the one failing the first and most vital test of any human culture: it cannot reproduce itself into the future. That's why we need cultures that can.

You mean to say that those who most believe in survival of the fittest aren't proving fit enough to survive. And vice versa?

Zombrex

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

(a) Is out for me, because I don't believe he was evil, or mad. Mad people claiming to be God, or thinking they are a God, pop up every day of the week all over the world, and none of them have come even remotely close to a theology as perfect as that presented by Jesus Christ.

So you think it is real because you like what he said? Isn't that the excuse of every followers of these mad/evil people?

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

(b) Lying is done for benefit. Why would so many people give up their homes, famailies with nothing to gain only certain poverty, persecution and death ? Why would their message endure timelessly untill today ?

Because their faith promised eternal happiness. As you say lying is done for benefit. Benefit can include the promise of an after life, particularly to people leading poor harsh lives in this world.

History is litered with examples of people who have deceived and allowed themselves to be deceived in the goal of following wonderful promises of a better life or after life.

Followers at Jones Town actively helped Jim Jones deceive other followers into believing that he could heal and cure them. These same followers, who must have known on some level that they had participated in deceptions, willingly killed themselves and killed their children on the order of Jones, who killed himself.

So it is not in anyway surprising or unusual that people do such things in the pursuit of a religious goal. Christianity is in fact one of the easier examples to explain using purely natural ordinary human behavior, the early followers of Jesus would have been devastated at the death of their Messiah who had promised to lead them to salvation, it is relatively easy to see how such devastation and refusal to accept what had happened to lead to false sightings and other stories, simply at first but embellished later, of Jesus actually returning and not being really dead.

Ask what benefit Jesus got out of going around pretending to be the messiah and the answer is actually in the Bible itself, he was supported financially by the wealthy members who followed him (Luke 8:3). Just like pretty much every cult leader that has ever existed.

I really can't help but think that there would be a lot less believers in religion if people just took some time to study human psychology a bit more and stopped being so utterly naive about how they think humans operate.

Dades

antiskeptic wrote: »

You mean to say that those who most believe in survival of the fittest aren't proving fit enough to survive. And vice versa?

No doubt you're ignoring for the sake of humour the fact that anyone with more than a passing familiarity with biology would cringe at the use of that non-scientific term in any context, given the inaccuracy of it's attempt to describe natural selection.

(:))

SillyMcCarthy

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Full article here

Fair play to Michael for stirring a debate but I think he misrepresents atheism. He sets it up as a sort of life stance on a range of issues. This is incorrect. All atheism is, is a position on an existential question, that is whether God exists or not.

Pardon me but I was under the assumption that athiests
didn't believe in a God?

Reading the above makes me wonder if you are unsure?

antiskeptic

Dades wrote: »

No doubt you're ignoring for the sake of humour the fact that anyone with more than a passing familiarity with biology would cringe at the use of that non-scientific term in any context, given the inaccuracy of it's attempt to describe natural selection.

(:))

You mean those who believe most in natural selection also happen to be those who aren't being selected?

The humour seems to travel well to the realm of the scientific...



(doesn't this render belief in natural selection detrimental to selection? Reason enough to flee to theism)

The Quadratic Equation

Dades wrote: »

There's a reason the churches don't want to let go of schools - they know that if they don't get them young - they unlikely ever will.

The schools you refer to are Catholic owned schools.
It's a parents right to bring children up in their religion in their own schools, and have acess to the same school funding as any other denomination or grouping has.

UDP

SillyMcCarthy wrote: »

Pardon me but I was under the assumption that athiests
didn't believe in a God?

Reading the above makes me wonder if you are unsure?

Yes contrary to popular belief most atheists hold the position that they do not claim to know if a deity or deities exist (agnostic) but do not believe that one or multiple exist due to the lack of evidence.

I suggest you read a nice article by an Irish Atheist here that might help explain.

UDP

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

The schools you refer to are Catholic owned schools.
It's a parents right to bring children up in their religion in their own schools, and have acess to the same school funding as any other denomination or grouping has.

and one would expect this to be at best proportionate to the percentage of catholics in the country - which appears it is not. I believe it is something like 93% vs 83/85%. When the new census results are released I expect this gap will grow larger again if some schools are not handed back in the meantime.

marty1985

Actually, antiskeptic is right to highlight the irony.

Dades wrote: »

Our own culture is slowly pushing Catholicism into the back pews. There's virtually no priests being ordained anymore. The church will always be there, but it's influence will wane over time.

Globally, our own culture matters little. Catholicism is in decline because of its own failures. Also, don't focus on Catholicism too much. Catholicism in Ireland came very cheap. Atheism as a rejection of that Catholicism will be just as cheap as what it replaces IMHO.

With regards to Ireland, the influence of the Catholic Church will wane for sure, but the church itself will still be there. As Irish Catholics exit the church, they are replaced by Eastern Europeans and Africans. In the future, we can probably add Chinese to this mix. Globally, Pentecostalism is surging. A quarter of the world's Christians are now believed to be Pentecostal. It is rising in Ireland too. Mormonism is experiencing an explosion globally due to their high birthrates, an exponential increase similar to that of early Christianity in the period 30 AD - 300 AD (which was largely down to their high fertility rates). Ireland won't be completely exempt from these trends.

Catholic Europe is in freefall, while Protestant Europe already has low levels of religious practice. But there is still a lively and demographically surgent Christian remnant. And against a backdrop of European fertility decline, fertility rates rise in practicing religious communities. Christianity in Europe is still not a spent force. Add immigration to this. The main flows involve Muslims and Christians. Few of them will be secular. All of these trends in Europe apply to Ireland too.

Religiosity might be in decline here, but this doesn't apply everywhere. The "indigenous" church might be in freefall, but the "immigrant" church is rising.

For example, in England, more Muslims attend mosque each week than Anglicans attend church, and Christianity is still not declining due to the high percentage of immigrant practicing Christians in London.

I would consider the immigration of religious communities with a penchant for having more children than then rest of us as a speed-bump in the slow decline of religion here. I don't see any of those new religious cultures as likely to go viral amongst the "indigenous" ex-catholic population. We are more likely to end up like Britain with distinct cultures but high levels of secularism.

It's the indigenous population that are on the way out due to low fertility rates.

It's not that they just have a penchant for having more kids. They are replacing themselves. We aren't. It can only be viewed as a speed-bump if they assimilate into your culture. Conservative religious groups don't. Even if they do assimilate, it is only kicking the demographic decline problem one or two generations down the line. That's why we actually need the cultures that don't assimilate. Even if we forget religion for a second: It's your own culture that is in decline.

But again, call it culture or call it an accident, what almost always determines what religion you are is not the evidence for that religion but where, and to whom, on earth you happened to be born. I think that was Michael's original point. Even if you happen to be Chinese, whether as an atheist or victim of part of the soul-grab that is going on all over the Second/Third World.

If that's Michael's point, then it is not relevant to what is happening to the most populous and powerful nation on Earth. Either way, his point is moot. It has no bearing on his belief being true or false. Secondly, these people are not poor victims. In a lot of cases, these are rich, upwardly mobile city dwellers embracing Protestantism in huge numbers at an amazing rate, and often in the face of persecution. They are choosing religion.

Knasher

antiskeptic wrote: »

You mean those who believe most in natural selection also happen to be those who aren't being selected?

The humour seems to travel well to the realm of the scientific...



(doesn't this render belief in natural selection detrimental to selection? Reason enough to flee to theism)

Birth rate and religion are correlated because women's rights are inversely correlated with both religion and birth rate. So yes, fleeing to theism would increase the birth rate, provided the type you are fleeing to involves the subjection of women. Not something I'd like to see us return to.

And considering that we've just passed 7 billion people, higher birth rates really don't contribute to our long term survival.

Roger Hassenforder

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

...Mad people claiming to be God, or thinking they are a God, pop up every day of the week all over the world, and none of them have come even remotely close to a theology as perfect as that presented by Jesus Christ.

there's a delicious irony there, and seeing as he had nothing much original, i think you've holed yourself midship, just below the water line!:)

Dades

antiskeptic wrote: »

(doesn't this render belief in natural selection detrimental to selection? Reason enough to flee to theism)

"Belief" in natural selection has more to do with education than religiosity, which I guess is also a hindrance to reproducing your genes. :pac:

marty1985

Knasher wrote: »

Birth rate and religion are correlated because women's rights are inversely correlated with both religion and birth rate. So yes, fleeing to theism would increase the birth rate, provided the type you are fleeing to involves the subjection of women.

It's much more complex than that. Conventional wisdom says that female education, urbanisation, falling infant mortality etc all tend to cause declines in both religiosity and birth rates. In other words, secularisation and smaller families are caused by the same things.

But, there are over 600 commandments in the Hebrew Bible. What was the first?

Reproductive success is often a religious obligation, a holy duty. Many religious people marry early and are anti-abortion and anti-contraception, all of which lead to larger families. There are other factors at play as well. Having a larger family can make people more religious, or less likely to lose their religion. Pregnancy and birth, caring for babies, the horror of contemplating their death etc can stimulate in people an intensity of purpose that leaves people open to religious sentiments. Religious families are more likely to be more stable, with less divorce. Religious people have higher motivations towards marriage, children and family values. Religion and fertility can be linked in many ways at the same time. Even Charles Darwin invoked God when he pondered whether to have a family. His wife agreed to marry him when assured of his religiosity.

On the other hand, secular people have a broken link between sexual urge and reproduction. Pregnancy is an occupational hazard. We are liberated from oppressive moral structures, we don't want to burden our finances and careers with more children than our aspirations for sun holidays can stand. Having children is full of risks - it is often deadly to mother and child, the births are painful, children are costly etc. These are motivational problems, that help explain why we lost the primeval urge to reproduce, to replace ourselves. These problems are solved for religious communities by religion because it advocates reproductive motivation and marriage. Their success at replacing themselves appears rooted in a closer adherence to traditional morality.

Religion can be described as a descendant-leaving strategy.

And considering that we've just passed 7 billion people, higher birth rates really don't contribute to our long term survival.

While you might think it best not to have any children because you feel the Earth's population is too big, and that might be quite noble of you, you might also consider we need to fend off the West's demographic decline, prevent the collapse of our pension and health-care systems upon which our aging populations depend, and keep the working-age population - and so the economy - from coming under an intolerable tax burden.

Our current birth rates do nothing for our long term survival. When you're below replacement rate, you're on the way out.

recedite

ghostchant wrote: »

The second figure is interesting. It would appear to show a system that hasn't reached equilibrium yet. It shows about 50% of non-believers switching, but the whole group growing. If the percentage of people leaving each group is maintained over time (no reason for that to be the case of course), you'd expect a turnover of the growth of atheist vs theist at some point in the future (and a further turnover later). Actually if you left that long enough then everyone would be in the blue group eventually, since there's effectively no-one leaving the group. (or is there something missing from the picture? The width of the blue group's label is larger than the width of the blue -> blue movement, with no other movement from blue. That's different to all the other groups)

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

Being colour-blind I'm compelled to ask - is that "Other" or "Black Protestant"? If the latter, then there's sort of a theoretical maximum...

Obviously, once you become a "black protestant", you never go back.
Didn't Arthur Guinness say something similar about converts to his newly devised "black protestant porter"...

lpjonesy

there is no God , the bible was written 1400-1800 they just made it all up

The Quadratic Equation

lpjonesy wrote: »

there is no God , the bible was written 1400-1800 they just made it all up

Any proof, or did you make that up ?

Turtwig

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

Any proof, or did you make that up ?

The proof utilises a higher order polynomial so it'd be useless in divulging it to you.

The Quadratic Equation

Malty_T wrote: »

The proof utilises a higher order polynomial so it'd be useless in divulging it to you.

You'll have to at least use a Levenberg–Marquardt algorithm to keep my attention, none of your student stuff please.

Now proof please . . . . .

The Internet Explorer

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

Go ahead, but you'll have to at least use LMA to keep my attention, none of your student stuff please.

Now proof please . . . . .

Turtwig

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

You'll have to at least use a Levenberg–Marquardt algorithm to keep my attention, none of your student stuff please.

Now proof please . . . . .

But the proof is outside your domain.

The Quadratic Equation

Catholics have no problem with the theory of evolution.

So what does it prove about the bible ?

The Quadratic Equation

Malty_T wrote: »

But the proof is outside your domain.

Thought so. Back to school lad.

Sarky

Look, just because you won't understand it doesn't mean it's not true.

Turtwig

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

Thought so. Back to school lad.

Funny you should say that it being a sunday and all, what happened to honouring the sabbath?

MagicMarker

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

Catholics have no problem with the theory of evolution.

Any proof, or did you make that up ?

The Quadratic Equation

MagicMarker wrote: »

Any proof, or did you make that up ?

Yes the Catholic Church approves of the theory of evolution, ergo Catholics have no problem with the theory from a Catholic point of view.

Sarky

That doesn't really follow. The Catholic Church also says porn is disgusting and immoral and shouldn't be allowed, but they also happen to own a massive porn-publisher.

I bet plenty of Catholics like porn too. If only to have something to feel guilty about after.

dmw07

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

Yes the Catholic Church approves of the theory of evolution, ergo Catholics have no problem with the theory from a Catholic point of view.

Em, What? You have made two bogus claims, one backed up by the other. Lets take them one at a time here, lad.

Yes the Catholic Church approves of the theory of evolution
I think someone should call the pope because the last i heard, the Vatican, hq of the catholics has yet to announce an official papal statement in relation to evolution. Creationism is still the one and the only way we came into being.

So, show the proof that what you claim, is even remotely true.

Actually, when was this torn up and shown to be a mockery of science
http://www.franciscan-archive.org/bullarium/oath.html

Even wiki agrees with me;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_evolution

ergo Catholics have no problem with the theory from a Catholic point of view
ERGO. Seriously. You used, ergo. You gave an opinion and tried to substantiate it as fact by using a Latin word. Didn't fool me. It means nothing.




At the end of the day, saying religion has no problem with evolution from a catholic point of view violates one of the first teaching of catholicism. You either don't understand evolution properly, or you don't properly understand the dogma you are trying so helplessly to defend.

recedite

You would find it very difficult to get a straight answer re RCC & evolution.
They are very wary of being burned by verifiable scientific facts since that embarrassing U-turn involving Galileo, preferring instead to stick to the more "metaphysical" arguments that nobody can prove or disprove.

sensibleken

Sarky wrote: »

That doesn't really follow. The Catholic Church also says porn is disgusting and immoral and shouldn't be allowed, but they also happen to own a massive porn-publisher.

I bet plenty of Catholics like porn too. If only to have something to feel guilty about after.

they do?

UDP

sensibleken wrote: »

they do?

http://lezgetreal.com/2011/10/catholic-churchs-german-porn-selling-media-company-rakes-in-the-euros/

Weltbild is Germany’s largest media company, with an online business second only to Amazon. It sells books, DVDs, music and a lot more….it also cells a lot of pornography. Oh yes, and did we mention that it was owned by the Catholic Church….not the Catholic Church owns a bit of it. Not the Catholic Church has stock in the company. The company is owned- lock stock and barrel- by the Catholic Church.

Weltbild has some 2,500 erotic books in their online catalogue. Some of those come from Blue Panther Books, which is an erotic book publisher actually owned by Weltbild. Among the titles offered by BPB are “Anwaltshure” (Lawyer’s Whore), “Vögelbar” (F—kable) and “Schlampen-Internat” (Sluts’ Boarding School).
The Church also owns a fifty percent stake in the publishing company Droemer Knaur. They produce pornographic books with titles such as “Nimm mich hier und nimm mich jetzt!” (Take Me Here, Take Me Now!), and “Sag Luder zu mir!” (Call Me Slut!).

Maybe people are taking these books out of context?!

sensibleken

UDP wrote: »

http://lezgetreal.com/2011/10/catholic-churchs-german-porn-selling-media-company-rakes-in-the-euros/


Maybe people are taking these books out of context?!

Ha! Reminds me of when Mark Thomas confronted a C of E spokesman about their shares in GEC marconi (who manufacture arms) by presenting them with a rapier missile launcher with 'thou shalt not kill' and 'blessed are the meek' written on the missiles.