On Dec 3, 2007 5:09 PM, William T Goodall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > The theory is that religion causes evil by clouding minds. That's the > causality. The correlation is there. QED.
It's hardly logical to state your premise and the correlation and claim that you've proved something. But you put "QED" at the end, so it *looks* like a proof. Hmm, making something that isn't science have the appearance of science by using scientific terminology... where have I seen that before? Of course, we could debate the nature of proof in sociology and psychology for a long time without reaching any conclusions. Even if there is causality at work in the relationship between doing evil and being religious, how do you know that it isn't the other way around? Perhaps people who have greater evil impulses turn to religion at a higher rate than others and thus evil causes religion, which then proceeds in some cases to diminish the evil-doing and the world comes out ahead as a result? I guess you have proposed at least one means of causality -- that religion teaches people to believe nonsense. Unfortunately, you're arguing from your premise (that religion is nonsense), so there's no proof there. Or you're throwing up straw men about what religion really is about. And by the way, I left you an opening with the hospital metaphor, but you didn't grab it. There are iatrogenic illnesses, those that are caused by the healer. I have no doubt that there are parallels in religion, but just as we don't shut down hospitals because, for example, people pick up infections there, it is not a compelling argument for shutting down churches. Nobody is arguing that zero harm is done by religion. Nick -- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Messages: 408-904-7198 _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
